Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Protection

This page was protected because of VeryVerily's ignorance of the three revert rule and his refusal to back his actions with valuable argumentation, not even in edit summaries. As he chose to start the same editing that caused the last protection right after unprotection and in spite of the repeated attempts above to discuss and since he behaves similarly in other articles I do not see any better solution than a request for comment on user conduct. Get-back-world-respect 00:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GBWR of course did not revert the article more than three times, because that would make him also responsible for what occurred, and he is utterly blameless. And my comments above don't actually exist, because as GBWR notes I refuse to "back [my] actions with valuable argumentation". And GBWR is definitely not continuing the same editing that caused the last protection; it's only me. I must be in an edit war with myself, clearly! V V 00:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As can be seen easily from above, I did not refuse to discuss, and I asked for protection rather than go on revertin like you in both cases. Because of your behaviour users have already requested comments on you twice, and unlike you I did not have to count on "boylovers" [1] [2] to start such an action. Get-back-world-respect 01:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A shameful, disgusting, and absurd (indeed bizarre) attempt to link me to pedophilia. V V 01:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not link you to pedophelia, only the other two users. Moon_light_shadow even outed himself in the German version. I only wanted to point out that you even went as low as joining with them when complaining about one of the users who does not allow you to spread your partisan messages - something those guys do all the time. Get-back-world-respect 02:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

I am unprotecting this page, as well as a few others that this or a similar group of users are edit warring over. Please do not make me or any other admin reprotect these pages. I suggest one last time that, if you are having repeated conflicts, you should go to the mediation committee. Barring this, if there are further problems with this page, or other pages, I will carefully review the history of the pages, I will identify where these problems are stemming from, and I will bring users to the arbitration committee. This is unlikely to be found satisfying by anyone, so I strongly reccomend that someone take the first step and request mediation. Snowspinner 16:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Page organization

I think that the paragraph that was moved up and renamed from "Allegations of "anti-Americanism" being a propaganda term" to "the concept of Anti-Americanism", belongs where it was before. Perhaps a different title for the section would be appropriate, but i don't think the new one is more fitting: The section does little to inform the reader what the "concept" of anti-americanism is. Rather, it discusses the legitimacy of the term. (which is partly why it shouldn't be first - the term should not be thrown into question on first impression, and certainly not before it is given content.) Kevin Baas | talk

I vehemently disagree. A large number of people believe that "anti-Americanism" as a kind of ideology does not exist, and that it is little more than a propaganda term. IMO it is POV to write a huge article about a propaganda term in the first place. Since this article already exists and isn't going to be deleted, we need at least inform people that the concept is disputed. If we did the same for e.g. The Jewish World Conspiracy, i.e. write a huge article discribing all the details of the the great Jewish world conspiracy, with only a little disclaimer at the end telling people it was only nutty Nazi propaganda - I'm sure you can see that this would be unacceptable POV. But I agree there is much work left on this paragraph, including the title if you like. - pir 23:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The term, so far as I am familiar with it, is ambivalent: it can be pov either way: It can be dimunitive of critics of certain american policies (arbitrarily marking them as "enemies of the state"), or it can be proof that there are a large number of such critics.

The term by itself, however, is neutral, and does not suggest anything at all unexpected or unneccessary. There will, in any case, be sentiments, and among these sentiments, some of them willl be critical of the actions of certain entities. In communicating, it is often usefull to refer to this sentiment as an abstract entity, with regard to the entity that it directed at. That is, there is, in any case, "anti-American sentiment", thou perhaps that title is a bit misleading in the anti-"american" part, for many so called "anti-Americans" are fervently pro-America, which is why they have the sentiment they do and why they are so critical of what they percieve to be anti-american policies enacted by people in the american government. In light of this, "anti-American" is somewhat of a misnomer.

It's a tricky subject, no doubt. I'd be interested in hearing a third opinion. Kevin Baas | talk 18:44, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Communism

The phrase "threat of Communism" can hardly be considered neutral. It is noone's right to say whether or not the US would have been better or worse off had Communism taken root there, nor it is fair to say that Communism ever posed a threat in the first place.

I suggest removing the "threat" part and leaving simply "Communism". This should not hold any pro-Communism sentiment.

Cite your sources.

We need citations, not unsupported assertions. Right now this article reads like a justification of anti-Americanism. Neutrality 04:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? A few examples maybe? On the whole the article is written in a relatively NPOV way, but the fundamental logical flaw in it is that it confuses "anti-Americanism" with things like opposition to US government policies or cultural values different from those typically held in the US.pir 08:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does, and always has. I have protested to little avail, and your edits seem geared at justifying it more. V V 05:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality, except that I think the word "justification" is inappropriate. Such a thing as anti-American sentiment is not something to be considered as just or unjust, but rather as a social phenomena that is innately valid as such. This article should proportionally elucidate the constitution of anti-American sentiment without criticism or praise. If, upon reading an article which meets this goal, a person considers the sentiment "just" or "unjust", that event has no bearing on the neutrality, accuracy, or fairness of the article. I consider everyone's feelings to be valid as such, and if they express them to me frankly, I am inclined to empathize. (For humans have much in common with each other.) Let the sentiment be stated plainly, and recieved without prejudice. Point being, simply as stated before, to view the problem in terms of "justification" or lack thereof is an injustice in itself. Kevin Baas | talk 07:34, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

How so, VV? Neutrality 01:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article will always look like a justification of anti-Americanism. Why? Because against every nation, valid criticisms can be levelled. In this article, almost all possible criticisms are made of the US, and many are valid. The important point, is that all that is good about the US, is in another article, or not here. Now possibly one could have a single Perceptions of the US page, but unfortunately, anti-Americanism is such an extensive topic, it demands its own page. In a dead-wood encyclopaedia, relevant articles can grouped, so for example, anti-Americanism would be part of a series looking at the US (with other sections being more flattering). Perhaps here too, a collection/series should be started/linked, with a box at the top of page, and a single line pointing out that this article should be read alongside other articles. But to finish/re-emphasise - no matter how much one tries to keep this article to an NPOV, it inherently can't be - it presents criticisms, and no matter how patriotic one is towards the US, some will always be valid/factual. Again, the problem is when one tries to take this article on its own. And, finally, this article is necessary, and can't really be merged. So, I suggest a series, linking aa range of important articles, good and bad, about the US (merely a category isn't strong enough). zoney ███ talk

I have mulled a Worldwide perceptions of the United States article, so that this one can be hollowed out and the new one can collect both positive and negative impressions of various elements of America. But that would be a bold undertaking, and given the recent participation of some revert-happy editors, it's likely to be time wasted. V V 06:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are definitely some revert-happy editors here. Kevin Baas | talk 17:08, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

As long as Americans are as happy to throw terms as "anti-American" into their analyzes of the outside world, Wikipedia will need an article clearly connected to that term. Americans may intuitively understand, but outsiders will go to Wikipedia to achieve a basic degree of understanding. Yes, V.V., much in life may feel as wasted time, and some of it as the sheriff's perpetual duty to keep the town free of scumbags, but with your energy, I'm sure you can keep even an article on anti-Americanism sanitized from the anti-Americans. ;-) --Ruhrjung 18:49, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Sarcasm, or lack thereof, often carries poorly online, so I'm confused by your intended meaning here. Is this pertaining to my proposed reorganization? As for keeping this article "sanitized", I don't feel I've been too successful, as it still reads like a "Why America Sucks" bulleted list. V V 20:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American supported death squads

"American support for government-sponsored death squads - rm new section; prev on "paramilitary groups" is more npov and lacks unsubst allegation"

This "unsubstantiated allegation" is backed by the New Yorker and supported by an independent investigation carried out by the United Nations.

It goes back in. Richard Cane

Could you provide links to these documents? It's easier to verify, and more difficult for people to just remove your stuff if it's backed by linked articles. - pir 23:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it true what I read in one article (don't remember wich one now) that the CIA under the Patriot Act can kill civilian US citizens without the persons knowledge, or allowing the person have the right to a trial for being labled as a terror susspect?

Intervention and meddling

If criticizing foreign nations for persecuting a religion is "intervention" and "meddling", then these terms have lost all meaning. Were France and Germany "meddling" in American affairs by opposing the war in Iraq? Is it "interventionism" when international forums dominated by Europeans urge the US to abandon the death penalty or adopt hate speech statutes? What do you think the US did re this scientology issue that warrants this kind of rhetoric, David.Monniaux? V V 06:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for David.Monniaux, but "intervention" can mean "intervening in a political debate", i.e. offering an opinion, rather than the other type of intervention. There is also a huge difference between a government taking a stance on an international conflict (war on Iraq) and taking a stance on a country's purely internal affairs (Scientology, seen in many countries as a serious threat and not as a religion). The death penalty debate is more than just a purely internal affair, because it is seen as a breach of the Universal Convention of Human Rights. For example, AFAIK, abolishing capital punishment is a pre-condition for EU membership ; human rights issues are also the source of frequent Western criticism levelled at countries such as China, Iran, pre-2003 Iraq. - pir 09:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And persecution of a religion, that's unrelated to human rights? Once more, I see you applying a double standard to make it seem one-sided. Anyway, I reiterate that criticizing a nation's human rights record should not be called "intervention". V V 09:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are obviously right that religious persecution is a human rights issue. I'm not taking a position on the Scientology question here, I'm just saying that in Germany the Scientology issue is not seen as one of religion. - pir 10:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By country

You can list specific causes of anti-Americanism in certain countries. At least France and Mexico (Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty) should appear.

I added a text about Anti-Americanism in Brazil. PMLF Nov 20 2004

"Foreign"

Regarding the usage of the word "foreign" in this article.

it is inaccurate - this is a global encyclopedia, not an american encyclopedia.
it is implicity pejorative/derogatory, because of xenophobia.

It should, at most, be "other", not "foreign". I am very much against the usage of this word in the article. It makes it sound like "us" vs. "them" propaganda. Kevin Baas | talk 18:18, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Totally agree. Trilobite (Talk) 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One must use basic context. "Argentines have a reputation for mistreating foreigners" makes perfect sense and is not argentinocentric (nor true, just an example). No-brainer. V V 18:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Still xenophobic. And clearly argentinocentric: subjects are set in relation to argentina, such as those "foreign" to argentina. How about "people who are not from argentina"? A little longer, yes, but not xenophobic or argentinocentric. But I really don't think we'd have to be this wordy. The word "other" can be used in most cases, whithout introducing ambiguity, removing information, or reducing clarity. Kevin Baas | talk 18:35, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

This is utterly absurd. Context is used all over the place. "Bush has family problems" means his family, not mine. If the article is about Argentina, such is the context. How could simple use of a word be xenophobic? Circumlocutions are stupid. V V 19:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xenophobia is a natural and innate sociobiological fear. Semiotics like "stranger" and "foreigner" naturally excite this fear. "Circumlocutions are stupid." is not a legitimate argument, and using the word "other" instead of "foreign" is not a circumlocution. Kevin Baas | talk 19:37, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

It's not our job to ward off innate sociobiological fears, but to use accurate and clear wording. V V 19:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In order to use accurate and clear wording, we must take into account the affects of what is being said, and word what is being said so that the affect on the reader most closely correspond with the information that one intends to convey, and nothing but that information. Kevin Baas | talk 19:53, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

These connotations are in your head. It's a straightforward word. V V 06:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the connotations are entirely imaginary. Maybe "other" would be a better choice where it's possible to use it. Of course, you can take this whole thing too far — I'm sure "other" has all sorts of nasty connotations too... Cadr 09:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree (with Kevin Baas), although with some moderation. However, as the theme of the text frequently involves more than one nation and/or country at each time, much clarity is won by substituting "foreign" for a less ambiguous word. We must also take into account that this text, obviously, is popular among editors; when texts get edited by many different editors, the original clarity (if there were one, to start with) sometimes get blurred by later additions. To try to avoid the word "foreign" is a preventive strategy. ;-) /Tuomas 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Being inoffensive

We should probably rename the section "American foreign policy" to "American other policy", so as to avoid offensive words like foreign. Of course, saying "other countries" is itself discriminatory, as it promotes an us/them mentality which excludes the "other". And saying "non-American" is worse, as it assigns identity based on lack of being American, which is clearly xenophobic, Americanocentric, and racist. So instead it would be better to say "American relations with..." and then list all the other countries in the world. Ah, but what order to list them in? Listing them alphabetically would be a sop to Roman imperialism. What a conundrum! I leave it to you more sensitive minds to cleanse this article of institutional bias. V V 13:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are a few places where "other" is a bit more neutral than "foreign", and each case should be considered on its merits. Your parody of NPOV gone too far makes its point, but changing "foreign" to "other" in a few places is clearly not taking NPOV too far. Cadr 16:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess I can't understand what is objectionable about foreign (that isn't objectionable about other). Foreign country, foreign relations, foreign policy, have very specific meanings. There may be a few places where another word would read better, but wholesale elimination appears to be what is promoted here. V V 16:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A "foreign" country is only foreign seen from within the US, another country is another country wherever you are. Quite straightforward why the latter is the neutral version. And whatever your preference, reincluding dozens of typos is unacceptable laziness and stubbornness. Get-back-world-respect 06:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No one has made this argument, perhaps because I pre-empted it above. V V 11:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think in some (at least one) cases, other can be removed altogether, without introducing ambiguity or changing the meaning, such as "many other countries" -> "many countries". Kevin Baas | talk 17:17, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

who owns the text

I am disturbed by the way VeryVerily discharge edits while denoting it with "accuracy" in the edit log.

To my best knowledge, none of his changes at about 1700 on 6 Sep 2004 improved the accuracy. Quite the contrary. It reinserted ambiguities and inaccuracies from earlier versions of the text (his own, as far as I can judge), and removed edits that improved both his wordings and the article in general.

In my eyes, VeryVerily here acts as if he were appointed as chief editor of the page, which as far as I understand is not the expected custom at Wikipedia. It's the worse as an editorial desk is supposed to ensure fact checking, but here the fact checking is removed.

The all-at-once deletion also of my changes of spelling and grammar[3] is the more disturbing, since I have put some time and energy on the issue, due to the deplorable fact that my mother tongue is another than English.

How is Wikipedia supposed to handle this kind of rouge behavior? /Tuomas 08:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You appear to have unwittingly intervened in a battle between me and Ruhrjung over the wording of one section. I wonder if you really understand the issues between him and me you're jumping to take a side on. V V 13:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope you don't mean to identify my behavior with that of la Faction Rouge. V V 13:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And what does this mean?
Since "you have a battle with Ruhrjung", everyone else is supposed to realize that their edits will become discharged within hours without being judged by their own merits; and that no-one else than VeryVerily is entitled to make a judgement on which of the versions that have factual or other merits?

Should there maybe be a sign at the top, or bottom, of the article saying that "this is currently a battle ground - please stay clear of area by danger of getting hurt"? Oughtn't the wikipedian way be something quite different, like the combatants move away from the battle ground and other users step in to tidy up? Please say that I misinterpret you!

There is the written Constitution of Wikipedia, ...and then there is the unwritten...

My skin is too thin to cooperate with a VeryVerily in battling mood. That's of course not to be misinterpreted as an approval of his following changes.
--Ruhrjung 19:18, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

The fact is that you in the last days repeatedly, and seemingly hastily, have edited away both factual and other improvements. Wouldn't an apology from you, VeryVerily, be the appropriate action by now?

(By the way, No, I do not understand "the issue between you and Ruhrjung". I see in the edit log a series of edits by the two of you, where you step by step improved the article in the Hegelian way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Then, at some moment, one or the both of you seem to have tired of the cooperation and (using your analogy, VeryVerily) dig in in positions for a stationary battle, from which Ruhrjung seemingly have walked away. I made a judgement of the different wordings. I do not argue that all of my judgements necessarily have had been right, rather I came to the conclusion that most of the differences in the versions that you currently have opposed, both versions by Ruhrjung and by other contributors, have been superior to the versions promoted by you. This is not to say that I find all of your work worthless, not at all. But your last actions "in battle" on this article, have been unhelpful. In particular I am disturbed by one of the combatants showing disrespect for my work as well as for my judgement by dishargin all of it without much reasoning or explaining the issue at the talk page, or anything similar. It seems to me to be aimed at widening "the battle", attempting to make others to leave the scene of battle or to put those that remain out of balance and down to less honorable levels. In the former case, the "ownership" of the text is protected, in the latter case, one is made a less valuable contributor to Wikipedia.)

To cleanse this article of institutional and other bias would surely be a task worthy of Sisyphos, but it does not have to evolve into "battles", does it? /Tuomas 17:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've edited away (a) Ruhrjung's anti-American POV language, (b) the senseless war against the word foreign which I have spoken of already, (c) two or three minor typo fixes of minor importance. I could refix the typos again, but there's no point; I'd be reverted anyway, with some other excuse. V V 07:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since you are not opposed by others about the "foreigner" just leave it. There are not "two or three minor typo fixes" but veriverily many, and if you are too lazy to defend your ideology without typos you are at the wrong place. "There's no point, would be reverted anyway, with some other excuse" reminds me of guess who. Just realize that what you want to do is not welcome at wikipedia. Leave it. Get-back-world-respect 07:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On (a), would you, VV, please care to specify what "anti-American POV language" you edited away? I see you to have made the following edits (compare: [4]) to my last proposals:

One recent instance was the response in US media on other nations' reluctance to support the US-led invasion of Iraq. What many US observers may have registered as widespread negative attitudes and harsh words, even in opinion pieces appearing even in first class U.S. media, ...
- One recent instance was the response in U.S. media opinion forums to certain nations' strong opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Harshly critical words in opinion pieces appearing even in first class U.S. media, ...
campaign ... against those nations whose public opinions voiced their opposition to the proposed war and against, the more limited number of, governments who didn't follow the leadership of the United States' government.
- campaign ... against those nations whose public opinions voiced their opposition to the proposed war and against their governments.
Although not only non-mainstream media outlets strongly and consistently oppose the war, but America's leading newspaper, the New York Times, editorialized strongly against going to war right up to its onset, the way leading US media reported on sentiments in countries outside the USA, before and after the invasion, left observers outside the USA unimpressed.
- In fact, however, not only did many non-mainstream media outlets strongly and consistently oppose the war, but America's leading newspaper, the New York Times, editorialized strongly against going to war right up to its onset.
...minister of justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin after she made a speech proposing that Bush's interest in waging wars abroad may have been a diversion of the electorate's attention from a less flattering development of the domestic economy, which, she is reported to have remarked, also Germans had own experience of from the times of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler's rule.
- ...minister of justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin after she made a speech comparing Bush's leadership to Adolf Hitler's.

"My" version above is certainly not perfect, and certainly in need of further adjustments and improvements, but in what way do you think that your changes were matters of language? Do you maybe see any examples here, in this bulleted list, of changes of content?

--Ruhrjung 09:06, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Well you seem to think my edits weren't "good enough", presumably because they didn't paint America in a bad enough light.

No, I did not. Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Take the NYT bit. My version presents a balance: it's not as simple as saying the media were Bush yes-men (as you obviously believe and want others to), for instance blah; you want to only mention this in an although clause, to give the impression that this is an unimportant exception easily rebutted.

No I did not. I disapprove of the limitations to "strong opposers" as the message received outside of USA was more like "either for us or against us", and thereby all non-supporters were targeted - not all "strong opposers". I also disapprove of the limitation to opinion pieces, since it wasn't a campaign that was perceived to be limited to opinion pieces, but to include biased and skewed news reports and news selection in large US media that reach also outside of USA. I also approve of the npov-technique of attributing opinions and perceptions to bearers and receivers. Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

The point of mentioning what papers actually said is to close the gap between reality and perception. This deserves more prominence than a dependent clause. Yes, I don't doubt that many ignorant non-Americans believe the US media and government were united in being slavishly pro-war. But it is obvious to anyone who actually read American papers at the time how absurd that is. In fact, the whole section is absurd. A few pieces by writers well-known for their use of ribald language were harsh on Chirac. Big friggin' deal. I suppose that never happens in Europe, and Bush is never the victim of "counterfactual hate speech". V V 15:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-war coverage in the mainstream US press was quite timid though. It mainly seemed to be based on the premise that the US invasion of Iraq was simply a tactical/strategic error, rather than something morally wrong. It was quite rare that plausible motives for the invasion were entertained, and it was quite broadly accepted that the invasion was carried out in (reasonably) good faith as part of the "war on terror". To a European (well to me anyway, I live in the UK) it was amazing to see supposedly liberal papers like the NYT taking the war and its proponents seriously. Cadr 13:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I don't think it's the issue being dealt with here. Also, I'm not sure what you consider timid. The NYT called Bush "reckless" in the hours before the invasion, and the SF Chronicle was harsher. Decorum usually prevents brazen personal attacks on top figures (as in their motives and honesty), which is maybe what Europe would like to have seen in opposition press, but I don't know I'd consider that news or even professional editorializing. But what would not taking them seriously mean? Editorials saying there were really ulterior motives? Most such theories come from the fringe. Though, I will say that fringe views were certainly covered (in stories on anti-war protests and the like), but I can't name any columnist offhand operating in mainstream media who promoted them, although come to think of it a few names come to mind who just might have. Anyway, like I said, I don't think this goes to the topic of the alternatives being discussed here. V V 18:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that there should have been personal attacks, but as you yourself say, "Editorials saying there were really ulterior motives? Most such theories come from the fringe." It is precisely the fact that such theories were relegated to the fringe in American media coverage which makes many view US press coverage as fairly non-critical. You go on to say "I can't name any columnist offhand operating in mainstream media who promoted them, although come to think of it a few names come to mind who just might have", which again would seem to support my point. It is one of the (supposed) functions of the media to be skeptical about the official government line. Given that there is plenty of factual evidence to challenge the offical reasons for America going to war (and just what is the official reason this week?), claims that American media coverage was timid (at least in scope if not in language) seem quite justifiable to me. I think this discussion is at least somewhat to the point, because it seems unfair to presume that criticsm of the US media for being non-critical rests entirely on ignorance. Cadr 01:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that the media is as often in, or "supposed" to be in, the skepticism business as much as the news business, right or wrong; muckraking is a bit passé. But, anyhow, how much credence should be given to the theory that the US gov't and media are Jewish/Zionist run, occupied, and controlled, which is widely believed in the Arab world and reported in the anti-Semitic press? How much ink should be spilled on the theory that it was a "war for oil", which simply makes no sense? There are more believable theories that the war was part of a plan to establish a "new world order" which we were not told about, but here a quote from Kerry comes to mind: "I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war." [5] Is Kerry fringe? If not, he's certainly suggesting there's something going on other than what Bush has said. At any rate, I still think this is off point. Remember, this is a section on Perceived American arrogance, and the point about attacks on Chirac in two oversalty columnists is being used to support it, IMHO an absurd stretch. These media issues you raise don't really seem to reflect on that matter. V V 22:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue, now, is not if US press was critical of the US government, but their reports on foreign views, in particular popular views in allied democracies, which, to some, seemed rather in the old known style of Pravda and Izvetsia. --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

I'm sure to some it did. But we needn't give credence to the view that it did when abundant evidence says otherwise. V V 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV language. Similarly, you wanted to omit any mention of why the US opposed to Däubler-Gmeli, to make it look like the US is arbitrarily bullying another government, without mentioning the extremely inflammatory statement she made. Now, you accept it's there after this prior deception, but want to try to put as much distance as possible in, instead of flatly stating what it is the US objected to.

I wanted Däubler-Gmeli to take appropriate place in this context, and found it reasonable to keep the details in the article on her, not here. Since you didn't, as it turned out, I quite simply corrected your account of what she had made. She had not made a speech to compare the former German Führer with the current American President, she made a speech in which she gave a Social Democratic view on why Bush may do as he does (an explanation that I personally do disapprove of, not to mention that I disapprove of that kind of public diplomacy that both high German and high US officials were fond of that autumn). Her remark on earlier German experiences of the same kind do I also disapprove of, but it should nevertheless be given an accurate presentation - here or maybe more appropriately in the actual article on her. And that accurate presentation includes that her mentioning of the Third Reich was in a remark, not the theme of the speech, and that the comparison with Bush was more indirect than your account makes it - as far as the withnesses from the meeting have been reported to remember.

So all in all, I think you have misrepresented my personal opinions aswell as my proposals in a way that is not at all contributing to my confidence in you. To be honest, I feel deeply hurt by getting told that I am thinking or feeling things that are very different from what I think and feel, and I think that your general behavior here hurts VeryVerily as much as it hurts Wikipedia. Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Yes, people are hyper-sensitive about being compared to Hitler, but not without cause. A mere "remark" comparing someone to Hitler in even a small way is going to produce a political firestorm, duh. Hell, remember Haider and the employment policies? Meanwhile, you wanted to not only completely omit this the controversy, but to not mention her name so no one could look it up! Or have you forgotten the initial version you wrote and how selectively the controversy was presented?

I admit to have had forgotten that. :-/ --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Whether you forgot it or not was not in fact the point, which was that your initial version was biased to the point it was hard to believe you were interested in a fair portrayal. V V 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I really did hurt your feelings, I apologize. I am reporting my impressions of someone who appears to me to be very selectively presenting facts in an extremely misleading way in order to bolster crude stereotypes of the US as unreflective, boorish, bullying, and absent of internal debate, which seems based on other things you've said to be how you perceive it. Perhaps there is a communication gap as you may regard as "obvious" things I strongly disagree with and am sick of hearing from Euro-"sophisticates". Also, it doesn't help matters that you have always edited this article aggressively, nor that before I even knew who you were you were panning me on RfC. V V 15:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To say that she compared Bush's leadership to Hitler's is highly misleading, because she only compared one aspect of his leadership to Hitler's. Ruhrjung's way of phrasing it was far more accurate. It's true that any remark comparing Bush and Hitler in any way is going to stir up controversy, but it's not Wikipedia's job to fan the flames. VV's phrasing (weakly) implies that she was comparing Hitler to Bush in the moral dimension, which she was not. Cadr 13:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well I see how it can be seen as misleading, although merely saying she made a "comparison" doesn't mean much, yet it's the comparison itself, however meek, that is inflammatory. Ruhrjung's orginal version was, "The previous year, during the general election campaigns in allied Germany, the American government unabashedly expressed their support for the opposition. They also publicly demanded the removal of the minister of justice, and after the elections proposed that Germany should disregard her constitution's prohibition against participation in wars of aggression", with then claim of "the expressed disrespect for an allied democracy's constitution and election process". I think you'll agree that that is pretty deceptive in its wholesale absence of why this was "demanded" and without a name or hyperlink to find out why, which unfortunately I feel is similar to past Ruhrjung edits to America articles. Of course, this does not defend the version I put in, but indicates my reading of Ruhrjung's goals in his edits and re-edits. I'll tweak the wording to address your concern. V V 18:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You would probably gain a lot from not reading in goals like that. This section, i.e. my participation to this section, has been about how US handling of basic democratic issues (with regard to allied democracies) in some cases can be perceived as expressions of arrogance. --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

You might gain a lot by not spamming user talk pages calling other editors delusional and witless. Do you really still not see the double standard? I realize what your goal is, but crucial information is omitted that contextualizes events described. If an article read "In 1940 Britain began dropping bombs on German cities. This caused huge anti-British sentiment in Germany", you would agree that something was missing, no? V V 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the first, you are just being wordy partly, but also want to bury the distinction between reluctance and strong opposition, when it's clearly the latter that was irritating to many.

Who was this irritating? ...and how are they relevant for an article on anti-American sentiments? Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Duh. We both know your edits to this article have been consistently geared towards panning America and promoting crude (and inaccurate) stereotypes, almost from the get-go. This is more of the same. V V 11:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's time for VeryVerily to answer the questions raised above, not presenting theories of what different contributors may think. Let's work with the text instead of with disparaging analyzes of what others might intend to. According to my opinion, the issue (in the bulleted list above) is primarily accuracy, secondarily balance, and in third hand the presentation have npov-flaws that need to be addressed. I don't care the slightestly if VeryVerily believes that other editors are searching to give impressions of the argument being "easily rebutted" — if they were, then there is no reason to present them at all, unless they can be attributed to some important and relevant opinion leader. The text is to explain not US foreign policies but anti-American sentiments. An accurate description of how those harboring anti-American sentiments understood a relevant event is then necessary. I care about the factual accuracy, and about VV's shown disrespect when calling my dozen-or-so of corrections of the language (his mother tongue, not mine!) "a couple typos are small potatoes". The wordings above do in my relatively humble opinion only increase the urgency of VeryVerily back-pedaling into apologizing operation modus. /Tuomas 05:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I was responding almost point-by-point to Ruhrjung's questions. If you can't see that, there's no point in writing more because you won't understand it either. (V V)

What are you here intending to say? It's rather obvious to a foreigner as me, that you've glossed over most of the questions above. I see no statement from you on how you regard the ownership of the text. And so on. (And not only my questions.) /Tuomas 07:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung did not bring up "ownership of the text"; both of us know that is a non-question. V V 08:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, you seem to me to have done your best to piss me off from calling our work "a battle" to now most recently: "Duh. We both know your edits to this article have been consistently geared towards panning America and promoting crude (and inaccurate) stereotypes, almost from the get-go." I wonder why you do your best to make me feel hurt and uninterested in cooperating with you? Have you, by the way, ever heard about wikipedia:civilty? It's hard to take you seriously, and it's hard to interpret your current work here as anything but attempts to suppress points of view that you don't agree with. To take up a question already raised in this debate: Is this an article on anti-American sentiments, or is it an article to explain and excuse policies and actions that have caused anti-American sentiments?
Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I have no interest in pissing you off. I used the word battle as a choice of word to simply report the state of affairs to those who had just tuned in, that is all. Maybe you feel it was a poor choice, and "editorial disagreement" would have been better. I gave it very little thought as it was a bit offhand. As for your other comments, I think I've addressed them. And as your last comment, perhaps this is more communication gap, as to me this article has long seemed like it could be entitled Why America Sucks, due to the sheer lack of counterbalance and rebuttal of the crude and uninformed criticisms which are piled on mercilessly. V V 15:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the article on anti-American sentiments is not to be limited to the term's usage within US debate, it's an unfortunate consequence that it will have to include some of the more prominent reasons for anti-American sentiments abroad. And unless we impose a limit to foreign anti-Americanism due to envy on everything that's good in the US, it's hard to avoid somewhat of the "Why America Sucks" approach &mdasn; since that's some of the reasons of anti-Americanism. You may, by the way, be interested in a link I got from a collegue today: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091504A.shtml - an article called When the rabit get a gun. --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

That article looks packed with tired canards - e.g., that OBL worked for the US during the Afghan war; if there's anything new there, I'm not looking further for it. And I see no reason why an article on anti-Americanism can't give causal relations such as, foreigners are largely ignorant of America, only get distorted glimpses, and are prone to crude stereotypes; or, many formerly powerful nations resent their loss of superpower status and scapegoat America; or, whatever. Certainly obviously false rumors which motivate anti-Americanism should be rebutted. V V 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And yes a minor typo or two is not a big deal compared with POV concerns. V V 20:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But why re-introduce typos that was just a few minutes ago taken care of? /Tuomas 07:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because it was part of a version with major problems in it, which had been reverted against my edits. I tried to remove all the typos one by one. Are there any I missed? If so, you have not pointed them out. V V 08:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have found myself rather confused by the frequent revisions made here, because they all seem to be over meaningless word choice. Can someone explain the difference to me between that and which? In the places where these are being swapped, they are exactly the same. I also don't understand the contention over foreign and non-American; in the context of the article, they also mean the same thing. None of these things have anything to do with POV or lack there of, they're simply arguments over grammar. I also don't understand why Hollywood keeps becoming Holywood and why a large keeps becoming an large. In an article such as this one, one might think the biggest contention would be over content, and not semantics. func(talk) 14:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some of that is quite curious. There is no advantage to that over which, and I don't know why the non-native speakers are insisting on it. Tuomas's native language is definitely not English. And I agree with the pointlessness of removing the word foreign, which is clear and to the point in cases where others prefer circumlocutions. V V 20:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You had all posibility in the world to explain that to start with, but instead you had the "courtesy" to make an all-in-all revert of my attempt to improve the language of this page on points where my reading (as an ESL-reader) was disturbed. I don't remember the exact number of language-corrections I proposed and you dismissed without condescending to explain your opposition, but I guess they were rather 20 than 10.
Back to square one! This is why I raised the issue at all at this talk page. /Tuomas 07:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I explained my edits. V V 08:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aw, come one, VeryVerily. What is it about placing the word and before the last item of a list that bothers you so much? Is it a Britishism? Irishism? What is it? And why is it important enough to cause so many edit wars? func(talk) 20:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because it's a direct quote of someone else, and should not be edited for style changes. But that's not really an issue here. V V 20:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And why, please tell!, is it necessary to extract every answer from you with tongs? /Tuomas 07:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was one word in a major edit. It never occurred to me you were hung up on it. V V 08:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the first paragraphs of this section at the talk page once again. Compare his edit, where I count to 23 totally uncontroversial language upgrades. If you had incorporated them into your version, you would most probably have been somewhat less misunderstood or unpopular or bullied or something.
Ruhrjung 13:51, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I picked through and attempted to restore the uncontroverisal "upgrades". I may have missed some. What can I do? V V 15:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Improve your behavior so that you'll have proponents, not opponents. --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Take the log out of your own eye. V V 02:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Japans human rights record

Japan is general considered the only industrialized nation with a good human rights record that retains capital punishment.

This sentence is in the current article. I'm very supprised about it, considering Japans actions during WW2. I think this sentence should be either taken out, or changed to indicate that only the history of the last 50 years matters Illuvatar 18:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What would be an example of a nation that had a good human rights record 50 years ago? Outside of Africa, blacks were mistreated pretty much everywhere, as were Asians outside of Asia, etc. The sentence is in the present-tense. I could see your point if it said "Japan has long been considered...", but in its current form, I don't think it's a problem, (except for the typo: "general"). func(talk) 18:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree with func's gist, if not his details. Japan did naughty things ones, but their human rights record right now is excellent. V V 21:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Herta Däubler-Gmelin

I just made some changes concerning the remark of Gmelin that led to her withdrawal from the cabinet. First of all, Germany's leading party SPD never "campaigned heavily against America's foreign policy". American foreign policy in general of course is not a main factor in European elections as it cannot be changed much anyways. The upcoming war against Iraq was however opposed by an overwhelming majority of Europeans, and as the main opposition party CDU seemed to support such a war it may have been a factor why some Germans decided to vote against them. Second, the "inflammatory" Herta Däubler-Gmelin "comparison" was just a remark in a speech, and I reworded to show more precisely what she actually said. I cannot think of any reason why anyone should think that any of those changes were not neutral. Get-back-world-respect 15:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they were campaigning specifically against America'a foreign policy. As part of their campaign, they repeatedly stated they opposed America's goals in Iraq, and were using that to whip up support, as what you just said seems to concede. Germany and other countries can use their influence, and in this case did try, to undermine the legitimacy and support for war. The fact that HDG's comparison was "just a remark" isn't really material to its offensiveness, although I did alter the wording because it might have seemed like it was the entire speech. V V 22:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just reacting to the wording of the response here, it isn't very neutral. I am critical of the characterizations: "opposed America's goals in Iraq", "undermine", "offensiveness", and I would say that they were campaigning against the Bush administration's foreign policy in particular, not american foreign policy in general or in principle, though I'm reluctant to consider these certain germans as "campaigning", given only this bit of information. You really make it sound like germany was arbitrarily attacking america. I would say, rather, that certain germans were being critical of certain aspects of the foreign policy of the current administration. This is a good thing. Criticism is better than lack thereof. It is an important part of intellectual discourse, because it helps one arrive at more measured and responsive decisions. Kevin Baas | talk 22:56, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

I am sorry VV, but I think living in Germany I know better what German parties campaign about than someone who gets translated information with a focus from another country. As you rightly say, Germans had views about Iraq different from those of US conservatives, although they shared the aim that Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction should be prevented. Germany's tactic would have worked by the way, as it turned out Iraq did not even have such weapons, whereas the US war killed masses, even more than one thousand US soldiers. The legitimacy of the war could not be undermined as the war was a war of aggression and broke international law, it was not only illegitimate but also illegal. All this changes nothing about the fact that the Iraq was only one of many aspects of US foreign policy, and at the time of the German elections many Germans did not even believe the US would go for a war opposed by such an overwhelming part of the world public. Get-back-world-respect 00:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I altered the wording to reflect focus on the Iraq issue. Saying the war was illegitimate and illegal is obviously a POV. And we all know hindsight is 20/20. V V 06:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a position shared by many law experts and will obviously not be presented as factual in any article. Your insistence on strange and sometimes tendentious wordings, ignoring the warning and reverts of many others are vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 11:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You could find many "law experts" that believe almost anything, that the income tax is illegal, that Jews are banned from Britain, that France is still a monarchy, you name it. You have yet to point to a "tendentious" wording. And spare us the vandalism card. V V 20:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You don't need a "law expert" to put two and two together, VV. Article 51 (the escape clause) of the U.N. Charter, entered into under the authority of the united states, says that a war by a member of the u.n. not authorized by the u.n. is legal if and only if there is imminent threat. There was not imminent threat. 2+2=4. The war was not legal. It doesn't take a "law expert" to figure that one out, though I'm sure that there are a few "law experts" who are having trouble with it because their clinical reasoning is clouded by strong emotion. Kevin Baas | talk 21:52, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Give it up. It's POV. Obviously. V V 22:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just tell me whether any of these statements, independantly, are pov: 1)Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, as interpreted by the international community, states that a war by a member of the u.n. not authorized by the u.n. is legal if and only if there is imminent threat. 2) The U.N Charter was entered into under the Authority of the United states. 3) The U.S. war against Iraq was not authorized by the U.N. 4) Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. Kevin Baas | talk 22:34, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

This is a really stupid conversation, as you clearly don't understand NPOV. There are a variety of arguments used to support the legal position of the war: (a) Saddam was violating the conditions for the end of the previous conflict. (b) The first Gulf War was in a state of cease-fire rather than ending. (c) Iraq was an imminent threat b/c of the danger of WMD programs. Anyway, as in so many of your arguments, you just don't seem to understand policy. You think your opinion is the only one that matters. V V 22:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever heard a UN Secretary General claiming France was a monarchy? I saw America's first class newspapers that usually win Pulitzer Prizes calling Chirac "a balding Jean of Arc in drag" and [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts Putin his poodle]. Get-back-world-respect 13:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must have missed the part where I said one claimed such a thing. V V 21:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll take you're failure to dispute the innate accuracy of statements as a tacit concession. ("danger of WMD programs", even if it existed, would not be imminent threat. See Cuban Missile Crisis for a counter-example of imminent threat: although the danger was much much greater than the supposed threat from the elusive inter-continental ballistic missiles of mass destruction from Iraq, at no point in the Cuban Missile Crisis was there imminent threat. Indeed, the CIA has admitted that there was not imminent threat. If you have information that they don't have, you might want to consider offering your outstanding services to them, as it would be imperative to national security.)

I understand policy, yes, in the context of world history. In the context of law. In the context of human psychology. Baseless and general criticism of a person's understanding of a subject is empty rhetoric and completely inappropriate in this forum. Let each person judge for themselves whose actions reflect those of a person who thinks their "opinion is the only one that matters". Kevin Baas | talk 19:52, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I don't consider it empty rhetoric to observe that a user consistently makes edits and comments that evince a lack of understanding of site policy. V V 21:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I. In fact, I find it particularly annoying. But that's what the dispute resolution process is for. Kevin Baas | talk 16:47, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

And FYI, if a war violates even one law, and does not meet the criteria in the escape clause of that law, then it is, by definition, illegal, no matter how many things one purports to be "legal" about it. See validity. In any case, it seems like you are a victim of propaganda. I suggest you do more research. You can start on this wiki: there's tons of info with tons of sources cited. Or you can get some books. (But by all means, don't watch T.V. for research purposes!) Really, VV, calm down and take a good look around. I'm sorry I've been getting somewhat hostile in tone. Forget that. Take a look around for yourself. Kevin Baas | talk 20:12, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Your patronizing tone is duly noted. V V 21:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you can do nothing but take offense from what is fully intended to be constructive criticism, than we will never be able to communicate effectively. I'm sorry if I came off as patronizing, but I really don't think you're respecting the first rule of wisdom, the socratic dictum: "I know that I know not." Also, I don't think you see how your actions come off to others. You really need to engage people less aggressively on this forum. Don't take this as patronizing. Take it as constructive criticism. The progress of one's person is proportionality to their ability to incorporate the knowledge exchanged by means of constructive criticism. Kevin Baas | talk 16:47, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Would you take it as "constructive criticism" if I told you to go educate yourself? And your means of "engagement" with me does not inspire confidence in your advice. V V 22:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I haven't found a way to effectively communicate with you. I assure you that it frustrates me as well. As to "engagement", I will let others be the judge of our comparative conduct. Kevin Baas | talk 23:12, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Just to get back to the issue, Herta Däubler-Gmelin has always denied comparing Bush to Hitler, and her comment was most likely distorted. [6] At a meeting she was talking about the US government's motivation for going to war (no mention of Bush personally), and the point she was trying to make was that they were not going to war for Iraq's oil, but to distract from internal problems in the US. She then compared this to Margaret Thatcher's Falklands War. Another participant in the debate then brought up Hitler, and Däubler-Gmelin agreed that Hitler also used this method, i.e. distracting from internal problems by going to war. If this account is accurate, she did not compare Bush to Hitler at all. In fact it was a newspaper, the Schwäbische Tagblatt, which printed a distorted version of what she had said. So basically we are talking a lot of BS about a BS Germany/US controversy based on a BS newspaper article about a meeting in which (IMHO) Däubler-Gmelin was talking a lot of BS too. Quite funny, the things people get excited about.- pir 22:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An interesting element to the story which hadn't been raised. V V 00:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, she seems to be the first to name Hitler, but I suppose it was obvious what was meant by "an Austrian". V V 01:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes that's true, but the point is that she did not connect Bush and Hitler (if the account I linked to is accurate, she did not mention Bush at all). She linked the US government to a particular "distraction" method allegedly often used by strong political leaders, and after another participant's remark, she agreed Hitler had used this particular method too. But she did not connect Bush and Hitler, which would have been a violation of a taboo, and which was the non-existent basis of the controversy. - pir 10:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with any of this. At any rate, the "connection" is infinitely flimsier than the press reports indicated. V V 22:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Veriverily's vandalism

As Veriverily reverts this and many other articles ad nauseam according to his own tendentious preferences everyone is invited to comment on his misbehaviour in the second complaint raised against him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2. 213.23.143.41 11:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He misbehaves. He doesn't vandalize. It's bad enough to misbehave, but you make no service to anyone by calling this "vandalism". --Ruhrjung 17:37, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

He completely ignores rules like not to revert three times in 24 hrs or to defend edits opposed by others in discussion, and not just as far as this articles is concerned. Get-back-world-respect 13:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to dignify this daft ranting, but the Talk page above readily reveals who has been involved in discussion and who hasn't. V V 02:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Future?

Is anyone even mildly interested in working out the issues on this article? Or is this just going to continue forever? V V 03:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think this page is an embarrassment and I would support a VfD simply because it seems to be dead-locked for good. Pity, since a lot of work has gone into it, and both subject and content should have a place in Wikipedia. My main problem with this page is the disconnect between title and content. What I would expect from this article beyond definition and concept (which I consider fair attempts at NPOV, despite the edit wars) is a discussion of events where Anti-Americanism has actually been alleged.

Instead, the current article is dominated by a large "Causes" section which is driven by people who claim that Anti-Americanism applied to their list would be "a propaganda term that downplays [their] legitimate criticism".

Here is what I suggest:

Move Definition and Concept to a page "Anti-Americanism": Explain here if and how the USA are treated unfairly (which is what the term is all about, after all).

Move Causes to a new page "Criticism of the USA": Explain here if and how the USA are treating others unfairly.

Either remove "Anti-American sentiment" or make it a disambiguation page for the new pages.

Rl 09:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The in-dept coverage under Causes would surely benefit from being partitioned, while a brief summary like in other Wikipedia articles must be left.

The article is, in my judgement, weak on several points, but it seems unlikely they will improve as long as contributors don't work according to Wikipedia's principles. Splitting the article is probably no remedy on that point. (One such weakness is the unsufficient distinction made between when the term is used to lable Americans as somehow un-patriotic, which is rather different from the undeniable anti-Americanism you encounter in certain nations and groups of nations outside of USA.)

would maybe be two relevant spin-off articles?

Criticism of the USA seems to me a far too broad scope.

/Tuomas 10:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think deleting this page is a realistic option. Yes, I see this page as being "Why America sucks", rather than a causal account of anti-Americanism which focuses on resentment, stereotyping, nationalist thinking, and so on, as well as specific American actions. I proposed actually increasing the generality of the topic, having a Worldwide perceptions of America article, which could list (in each category) what is seen as good and bad. Dividing it up by region as Tuomas proposes does not seems so wise. Anyway, the present edit war is just goofy, especially since the bulk of it is on nonsense that doesn't really need to be in the article at all and is important merely to Euro-sophisticates (no names). V V 21:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason I came to ponder how this article could be divided in more than one is that its size is considerable and given the degree of detail requested by VV on even more peripherial subjects, as on Helmut Schröder and Herta Däubler-Gmelin. (In my opinion, it ought to have been sufficient to cut down the text there and at many other places to the essence of What Causes Anti-American Sentiments without the long intrinsicate reasoning on background factors and so on.)

The reason I came to think of a separation between the West and the Arabic World is that the phenomena are quite different, although overlaping on patches. The Arab version is rather much of anti-Western sentiments, where the US is identified with a long tradition of Western influence that in different ways has been perceived as detrimential from the Crusades and forth. In the West, as most contributors here surely know, it's more a matter of the US at large not living up to what's perceived as common ideals (from long-term survival, i.e. environmental and defence issues, to human rights and democracy issues).

Furthermore, seen from a reader's perspective, it might be of greater interest to organize the topic primarily geographically.

With regard to "sophisticates," I guess this was another of VV's habitual breach of the Wikiquette. Name-calling is what they call that, isn't it? Oh, VV, when will you grow up? /Tuomas 09:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying stupid, conceited things like that is not going to make me want to try to work with you. V V 09:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fully support RI's suggestion. This article is a big embarrassment to Wikipedia, the title anti-American sentiment is just an incredibly lame euphemism for "anti-Americanism", then the article falls for the propaganda that holds that opposition to or criticism of the US government is "anti-American" and mixes it with the usual dumb stereotypes of Americans. It must be the most awful article on the 'pedia. The only way to improve it is to seperate those different things. I would suggest:

anti-Americanism - concept etc.
opposition to US foreign policy - a very relevent phenomenon, worthy of a proper encyclopaedic entry ; this shouldn't be mixed with all the emotional "sentiment" stuff
likes and dislikes of the US - the sentiment stuff, good and bad

I agree with VV that it's a bad idea to seperate according to reagion, as well that positive and negative sentiments towards the US should be treated together. - pir 10:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir's suggestion has my vote, with these comments:

anti-Americanism should (besides Definition, Concept) include Documentation/Discussion of actual use of the term.
I have no strong feelings about further splitting pages once Anti-Americanism is on its own.
I don't really care if likes and dislikes of the US keeps its Anti-American sentiment title.
I would support Tuomas' idea to discuss roots of Anti-american sentiments by region -- not as page split but as sections within the likes and dislikes (or foreign policy, where appropriate) page. The German article has a nice (NPOV) history of the perception of the USA in Europe which could serve as an inspiration. Rl 12:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that that it is essential to look at the use of the term "anti-Americanism", we shouldn't do primary research but the opinions we talk about should all be attributed and sourced if the article is supposed to have any quality. I partially agree on the question of regional separation ; it should definately all be in the same article, subdivisions according to region, but in addition look at it from a global perspective (along the lines of what a NYT editorial said I think, after Feb.15 2003, that there was a second global superpower, namely the 10 million+ people who demonstrated against the US war on Iraq on that day). - pir 12:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, do we have an agreement to make the move as outlined above (once the page becomes unprotected again <sigh>) ? In particular, can we get a ceasefire on edit wars until the split is done? Rl 16:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think an anti-american sentiment page should contain both good and bad. How usefull would it be for something to link to it? "...these actions and beliefs are motivated by these [[good and bad|feelings]]." You can't usefully link to a page about sentiment when that sentiment is ambiguous. Kevin Baas | talk 17:11, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Fair enough. As far as I can tell there is no "good" so far anyway, so right now Anti-American sentiment covers everything. If one of these days someone decides to list the positive contributions of the US to the world at large, they will hopefully find a better title than "Pro-American sentiments". All I care about right now is getting Anti-Americanism split out because it does not belong here. I am glad everyone seems to agree on that. Rl 17:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are somewhat dealt with in American exceptionalism ;) - pir 18:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between that proposition and the events that preceeded the protection of this article, and hence I don't see how it would be any solution to the relevant problem of VV's defiance of Wikipedia customs and civilty.

--Ruhrjung 05:54, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I posted my initial suggestion in this thread before the latest page protection took place. I am trying to solve one real problem that clearly led to some of the flames. It seems a bit unfair to complain that the proposition fails to solve problems it never meant to address. Rl 10:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to be unfair. I've not thought enough on your proposal to have a serious opinion on it. In my view, this page above all lacks a logical structure and coherence. The size issue is not a problem to me, and since there is a relatively well-working structure of headings, it's also no big problems that some sections go more in dept than others — although it gives a rather unfinished impression of the article. --Ruhrjung 21:12, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand which proposal is actually on the table. (I also see this discussion as independent of the ongoing edit war; I will also resist the temptation to smear Ruhrjung back.) V V 11:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think a definition needs to be clarified here: for something to be a "smear" it has to be baseless/unsubstantiable, and for purely defamatory purposes, not purposes of procedure. You usage of the word does not fit these criteria. Kevin Baas | talk 15:44, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I see, because everything you say is true! V V 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, you've already many times demonstrated much more verbal aggression toward me than I care to read. You may have noticed that I not always comment in such situations, and that I sometimes wait until I've calmed down. Maybe I could give you this as an advice?
--Ruhrjung 21:12, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Well, I'm no doubt thicker-skinned than you, but to harp on so-called "aggression" in light of the way you have talked to and about me makes it hard to take such complaints seriously. But I made this point several times above and it probably serves no purpose to repeat it. V V 23:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the undisputed part (so far) is splitting "Anti-Americanism" off this page: Move definition and concept and any evidence/discussion of actual use of the term to that page. I don't think we have an agreement yet on the plans for the rest (renaming, splitting further, ...), but we had several constructive comments and a pretty civilized discussion. -- I agree, it's an independent discussion since it is not about content but about logical organization of the content. I am convinced, though, that such a split can mitigate some of the controversies.Rl 14:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear on this. If the proposal is to have a separate Anti-Americanism page, but keep this as a list of complaints about the U.S., then I'm not so sure it's a good idea. For one, it's what we had before, and it didn't work very well, and if I recall I was the one who merged them back. I had thought the idea was a proposed reorganization of the topics within the page, and/or the splitting off of subpages with topics such as "Opposition to American foreign policy" or the like. Or, is one objection just having sentiment in the title, and that's what the move is being proposed for? V V 20:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What I object to is having Anti-Americanism redirect to a "why the US sucks" page. A list of complaints about the US may or may not fit Anti-American sentiment, but it does not fit Anti-Americanism which just needs a definition and some discussion of the terms use. ... Obviously, there are other issues, but there's no way to resolve them all at once.Rl 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, well some may inherently need to be solved at once. Having both the -ism and sentiment articles simultaneously was simply presenting problems due to the lack of clear boundary between the topics (one about the term, the other the sentiment), so a solution would I think need to avoid having this be an intermediate stage (since among other reasons intermediate stages often gain considerable longevity). V V 23:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Split off Anti-Americanism

I have split off anti-Americanism as discussed in the section "Future?". I am very aware that this won't make everyone happy, but I really hope it won't make anyone unhappier. I didn't want to make massive changes in the same go, so the definitions share phrases (improvements welcome). I did make a few changes to state the intent as clearly as possible: Anti-Americanism is about a perception of unfair criticism of the USA. Anti-American sentiment is about negative perceptions of the USA. Obviously, there is some intersection, but I suggest as a rule of thumb: Friends of the USA set the agenda on anti-Americanism (and foes of the USA can try and rebut on the same page which will hopefully result in some approximation of NPOV), while the roles are switched for anti-American sentiment (or whatever you want to call this page now). Rl 10:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I split off the "foreign policy" section into a new article: Opposition to US foreign policy. I think this opens a lot of scope to improve both this and the new article, because opposition to US foreign policy isn't based on emotional prejudice of the "Americans are dumb and arrogant" sort, but to concrete objections and facts. I hope it makes everybody happy. Of course major work needs to be done on both articles now. - pir 11:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That and Which

I find it difficult to figure out the exact issues that editors are having with this article when I keep seeing the same meaningless reverts over and over again. Appearently, some of you are pro-that, while others of you are pro-which. Why this would make any difference to any speaker of the English language is utterly beyond me, but let's work it out. Maybe we could take it one sentence at a time:

Sometimes this is called Coca-colonization from the Coca-Cola Company, which sold the same product worldwide.

Sometimes this is called Coca-colonization from the Coca-Cola Company that sold the same product worldwide.

What about a rewrite along these lines:

The term Coca-colonization is sometimes used to describe this, because of the beverage sold by the Coca-Cola Company worldwide.

func (talk) 12:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neocolonialism

I see no mention of neocolonialism in this article. Was this forgotten or is there some reason it's not in there? Kevin Baas | talk 19:22, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)