Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Various improvements by Marielleh

On April 30, editor Marielleh has made some very good changes, not only removing spelling errors but also POV, plus adding useful information and better language. Another user, "Jayjg", has reverted these edits without reason or explanation. This is a pity. Take for instance this paragraph:

Former version: "The fall of the Soviet Union may have created more space for criticism against the United States, because the American security umbrella was no longer needed."

Clearly POV: "American security umbrella was no longer needed" - there were quite a few people in Europe who always felt that the so-called "security umbrella" was never really "needed" or wanted.

Marielleh's edit: "Paradoxically, the fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an increase in anti-Americanism, because the U.S. was left as the world's only superpower, and people who formerly saw the United States as a bastion against Communism or needed the American security umbrella no longer felt the need to support the United States. Globalization, often portrayed as an American neoliberal project, while improving international contact, has also magnified the visibility of trade conflicts and increased societal insecurity about jobs."

Removed POV, and elegantly so. Added info, a wonderful improvement. I will now go and restore it. Rkrichbaum 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the former version was not quite NPOV, but Marielleh's edits in general either make it much worse or are textbook WP:OR. They also tend to digress heavily from the point of the article. The replacement of the relevant photo with a totally irrelevant one is also questionable. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 22:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got it backwards: your former version was Marielleh's edit while your note of Marielleh's edit was the former version. The line beginning "Paradoxically..." has stood on this page for months. Jayjg correctly reverted it. The one thing lost was some dabbing s/he did. Also, the pic was not an improvement at all. Marskell 14:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both; Marielleh has been POVing and inserting WP:OR digressions into several articles. I can't imagine why someone would believe a caption which states "The concentration camp has heated anti-American sentiment." could possibly be helpful or neutral or fall within policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe quoting the source of this assessment will help: "Testimonials and photographs of atrocities emerging from Guantánamo feed anti-American sentiment. 'Guantánamo provides rhetorical fodder for politicians seeking to bring down United States-allied rulers in their own countries,' the New York Times reported. 'It offers a ready rallying point against American dominance, even in countries whose own police and military have been known for severe violations of human rights.'"

Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052305B.shtml Rkrichbaum 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, and I am sorry - somehow I must have confused the two entries.

As to the other edits by Marielleh, however, they mostly just added explanations which are relevant, references are easy to come by for any of these (maybe they should be cited):

- "feelings of distrust or dislike toward the United States tend to increase when United States causes wars, violates international laws" - exactly the reason why "anti-US" sentiments were on the increase in Europe

- The term Great Satan (...) in continual use in Iran "since the strongly U.S. supported totalitarian regime of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown" - a correct description that is certainly not "POV" or "Original Research"

- "In many Middle East countries, the sentiment against the United States stems from domestic politics, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the governments are in close relationship with the U.S. In these countries, dislike toward the U.S. stems from opposing the country's own corrupted goverment." - Again, this can be referenced if necessary, but is certainly not seriously disputed by anyone.

- As to the picture, it provides an example of and explanation for "anti-American" sentiment. Why is this hard to understand? Does anyone really believe that the existence of this concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay does not influence public opinion in other states? Or is it the "loaded" term "concentration camp"? In this case, the caption could easily be altered, maybe to "What has been reported about the POW camp in Guantanamo Bay has heated anti-American sentiment."

Everything you cite is assumptive (with the exception of Great Satan, which is still there less the Shah's name). "...stems from..." is not a statement to take for granted and I suggest you examine the disputes again before declaring them non-disputed. The pic itself may have value somewhere, but to replace an excellent intro pic, that literally has the article title jumping out, makes no sense. Marskell 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is kind of funny that you say it is "assumptive" that feelings of distrust or dislike toward the United States tend to increase when United States causes wars, violates international laws; that the US strongly supported the totalitarian regime of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; and that "the sentiment against the United States stems from domestic politics, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where the governments are in close relationship with the U.S. In these countries, dislike toward the U.S. stems from opposing the country's own corrupted goverment."

Whereas you restore the following unsupported claim:

"Anti-Americanism is often described as a phenomenon that is uniformly hostile to the United States independently of the real attributes of the nation and has characteristics of a distinct ideology." ... "a school of thought" ... a "coherent and dangerous ideological current, comparable to anti-Semitism".

"often" described? characteristics of a "distinct ideology"?

Where have these characteristics of a distinct ideology ever been described?

Certainly not in the rant against the "hard" left that you added as a source to the "anti-Semitism" comparison ("The New Anti-Semitism?" http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=749).

Among the listed sources I can only find one (http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0902/antiamerican.htm) that contains something like a coherent argument, not so much in support of the concept that "anti-Americanism" is a distinct "phenomenon" or an ideology, but contending that various theories of empire contain elements of "anti-Americanism(s)". Did you read it? This very source states:

"We take for granted that such a thing as anti-Americanism exists; we leave to others the task of contesting this presupposition."

LOL! Now there's an assumption if I ever saw one. And what's up with the royal plural? Delusions of grandeur? Rkrichbaum 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First, no thanks on the appeal to emotion.

Second, phrasing: "Anti-Americanism is often described as..." is a qualified suggestion; "the sentiment against the United States stems from domestic politics..." is a statement of fact. By all means we should mention policies, but not like this. It mistakes a proximate factor for an ultimate cause. The implicit corollary to "In these countries, dislike toward the U.S. stems from opposing the country's own corrupted goverment" is "in the absence of U.S. support for corrupt govt's there would be little or no Anti-Americanism in these countries." Does that make sense? No, it doesn't: even it had an utterly benevolent foreign policy, America would still suffer from being Christian, secular, capitalist, "run by Jews" (take your pick). Of course, policy absolutely amplifies things, so devise a sentence noting that but please don't assign cause as if it's undisputed.

Regarding the intro edits, we have two very simple points made: "some think it a dangerous ideology" and "some think it an over-blown hodge-podge used for propoganda." In both cases you simply removed the former and left the latter as our statement of fact. I'm sorry but this is a POV push. Suggest tweaks to the wording—I can live with phenomenon ahead of ideology for instance—but simply removing the point leaves us half-done. I would call the racialism described here an ideology; insofar as the United States is configured and packaged, as noted, as a decadent power and a Crusading Christian one by bin Laden etc., I think you're dealing with an ideology. What would you say the (sourced) comment from Henri-Levi denotes? Something more than a "rough composite" to be sure. I'm not asking you to agree but we can't simply present the "what's the big deal?" angle in the absence of the "this is serious" angle. This from the J.W. Caesar article: "Anti-Americanism rests on the singular idea that something associated with the United States, something at the core of American life, is deeply wrong and threatening to the rest of the world." That is, an ideology or ideologies not (merely) a "rough composite."

The source was quick because I had little time: try Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism in Google Scholar and tell me it hasn't been professionally discussed. Marskell 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my objection, so I'll give it another try.

Whether anti-Americanism is dangerous is not the point. Of course it is, should and will be widely debated, scholarly and otherwise. But I think the current version of the article is not particularly helpful to understand the term and its connotations properly.

It is undisputed and irrefutable that the anti-American label covers a wide range of attitudes, rhetoric, certainly prejudices and sometimes actions. Anti-Americanism is the term which sums up what is deemed anti-American by the respective author. One might say, e.g. "Chinese anti-Americanism", and this would denote the sum of everything anti-American that one might find in China or among Chinese. Or "Anti-Americanism in Africa" might be the heading for a study on anti-American rhetoric, activities, and sentiments in Africa.

This is not my interpretation, or some POV, this is the general use of the term, including in the listed sources.

You have cited NOT A SINGLE SOURCE that would attempt to define "Anti-Americanism". No surprise, since a scientific definition of "Anti-Americanism" does not exist. (I have a source for that, albeit in German).

Rubinstein/Smith attempt to classify certain types of Anti-Americanism: 1. spontaneous reactions / 2. part of ideological constructs (e.g. communism) / 3. oriented towards action / 4. instrumentalised for other purposes. They do not describe Anti-Americanism "as an undifferentiated phenomenon that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening, independently of the real attributes of the nation", as is now ridiculously claimed in the intro. Nor do they describe it as an "ideological movement" (at least that is what I get from a secondary source - is the article available online somewhere? You cite page 35, presumably the first page of the article - do you have the quote verbatim?).

Caesar lists various quotes, mostly by 19th century conservative intellectuals, and Heidegger. It is unclear how they are supposed to be connected, especially when the article culminates in the absurd claim that "Through the writings of thinkers like John-Paul Sartre, "Heideggerianism" was married to communism, and this odd coupling became the core of the intellectual Left in Europe for the next generation." This is typical Cold War propaganda and reminds of the pet argument of right-wing Libertarians, that Communism and Nazism are essentially the same. Hardly undisputed, though, and it does nothing to bolster your claim that Anti-Americanism is an "ideology". On the contrary, like other right-wingers in the list of references Caesar seems to opine that Anti-American thinking is typical for and part of certain other ideologies.

(Unfortunately, this very opinionated Caesar article figures prominently here. Almost the entire History section is drawn from this short paper which is thus put on a soap-box.)

Finally, as to the "sourced" comment from Bernard-Henri Lévy ... This single sentence, apparently spoken during an interview, sounds like an emotional outburst. It denotes that Henri-Levi doesn't like the people he labels as "anti-American". Again, I have no idea how you reach the conclusion that this outburst supports your assumption that "Anti-Americanism" is an "ideology". Rkrichbaum 12:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know what plural usage you're speaking about... Marskell 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"We take for granted that such a thing as anti-Americanism exists; we leave to others the task of contesting this presupposition." Thought you might be able to enlighten me as to whether this is an attitude shared by more than one person ... Rkrichbaum 12:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, the article was written by two people. I think the plural is appropriate. Wait for the rest... Marskell 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To make one thing very clear: I have not edited this page to suggest that anti-Americanism is an ideology. Consistently, I have tried to balance the two points, while you want to remove the first. And please don't play cat-and-mouse. You asked me why I removed one edit and not the other and I explained why: there's a difference b/w qualified suggestions and statements of fact. And now your launching ad hominem bullshit at me (ya, I've read past the first page of the articles cited here given that I've been watching this page for a year) and, of course, the writers you disagree with. Your (or my) opinion on Caesar is irrelevant. It was published and it's cited by others and we're entitled to use it; you can't just to choose to disregard its points because it doesn't suit your POV. By all means find more sources given that we over-rely on it.

• "The use of the term anti-Americanism 'is only fully justified if it implies systematic opposition - a sort of allergic reaction – to America as a whole.'" Marie-France Toinet, "Does anti-Americanism Exist?" in Denis Lacorne, et al., (eds.), The Rise and Fall of Anti-Americanism (cited in O’Connor, 2004, direct quote)

• "Any hostile action or expression that becomes part and parcel of an undifferentiated attack on the foreign policy, society, culture and values of the United States" (this is the Rubinstein and Smith, cited in O’Connor, 2004, verbatim).

• And there's this title from O'Connor himself at an Ohio State lecture (whose PDF doesn't appear to be working for me): "What is Anti-Americanism: Tendency, Prejudice or Ideology?" Now O'Connor evidently does not believe A-A is an ideology, but do you think this is at least indicative that the debate exists? All this article suggests is that debate exists; I'm not asking for more than that.

• "Joffe identifies five classic marks of anti-Americanism: reducing Americans to stereotypes, believing the United States to have an irremediably evil nature, ascribing to the U.S. establishment a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe, holding the United States responsible for all the evils in the world, and seeking to limit the influence of the United States by destroying it or cutting oneself and one’s society off from its polluting policies and practices. Joffe cites a number of extremely disturbing documents, cartoons, and statements from the Arab world demonstrating a full-fledged ideologically based form of Anti-Americanism that displays all five traits." Walter Mead, Through Our Friends Eyes, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006, pp. 139-140 (paraphrasing Josef Joffe, Uberpower: The Imperial Temptation of America, Norton, 2006).

• "In France, hatred of America is the default setting of the majority and needs only occasional refreshment from intellectuals. It is more than a political opinion: it is a unifying factor at times of national division." Philippe Roger in the Times Book Review. Would you call that a description of an ideology? Sure, it's nice and polemical but The Times is citable and I have no doubt one can easily shake down many descriptions of French A-A that cast it in ideological terms. Indeed, France and the Mid East appear to be where it's most applicable.

• Let's grab our first google hits (1.9 million, incidentally, for a search of anti-Americanism and ideology): "New Pro-Kremlin Youth Movement Adopts Anti-American Ideology." A book listing for a book I haven't read; presumably written by a crank. "The energy religion is a phenomenon that started in the early 1970s. Its origin is associated with the anti-nuclear movement. This in turn is associated with the ban-the-bomb movement, which is associated with anti-Western and anti-American ideology." From Stanford [1], half-way down; presumably a prof. who hasn't been informed that anti-Americanism isn't an ideology.

• And, of course, there's numerous quotes from Caesar but you seem to have dismissed him so I won't waste my time.

You might try this search and see what you get. Four thousand+ plus scholarly hits doesn't seem to support the contention that mentioning A-A and ideology in the same breath is "ridiculous." Marskell 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I do want to add/emphasize one point: you seem to be under the impression my editing is based on some personal claim that A-A is an ideology. I have nowhere made that claim for the phenomenon as a whole (and good Christ, we can at least call it a phenomenon) and I'm fully cognizant of the fact that speaking of Anti-Americanisms may be more appropriate across geo-specific, topic-specific frames of reference; indeed I would personally come down near that stance (the only critique that I think basically approximates a globabally uniform ideology is "America as capitalism", which gets at least some play from Venezuala to France to Iran to North Korea). But you seem to be suggesting we abrogate the use of ideology entirely in this discussion, which simply doesn't make sense. Marskell 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an idiosyncratic understanding of the term ideology. Please take a short look at the respective Wiki article and explain how "anti-Americanism" would fit. You cite in your bullet list above the claim that a "full-fledged ideologically based form of Anti-Americanism" exists. Well, that's something different from an ideology, don't you think? Ideologically BASED - That is indeed what the article of Caesar implies and Fleming/O’Carroll attempt to show. They claim that (communist) ideology(ies) or theories ARE anti-American, at their core, irrationally or whatever. The alleged anti-American attitude or sentiment is claimed to be incorporated into them, or a hidden motive.

There is also a Marxist tradition of using the term ideology - in the sense of "false consciousness". In this sense, you could say that rhetoric hostile to the US may be ideological, because it may be suspect of personalizing, distorting or simplifying issues that are better understood by an unbiased scientific critique of institutions. In Germany, there is an entire faction of Leftists, self-declared "Anti-Deutsche" (anti-Germans), who often take the view that criticisms of US policies are "anti-American". They also get a little hysterical at times.

As to your playing around with Google - well, others have tried this before, you know. Search for +cat and +dog and tell me how 50 million hits are proof that cats are dogs. Come on. Rkrichbaum 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Can you accidentally mention Hitler and then we can end? You're playing bait-and-switch. I have not and this article does not call it an ideology--yet you continue to argue as if I do and it does. The intro attempts to lay out the scope of the debate with a series of qualified statements; there's a much fuller one to the bottom of this page now. To use a contrary point, I think calling A-A (merely) a propaganda term is wrong-headed and reductionist, but I have absolutely no problem mentioning it. And Google scholar isn't playing around. Seriously, you might look at this. Marskell 10:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Section Needed for roots of differences

An important point not brought up in this article is that since the US is a nation of imigrants, Americans are not ethnically or racially different than their counterparts in the rest of the world. In other words, the differences are created by the temperment and personality differences of "those who left" verse "those who were left behind". This could help explain stereotypical American traits such as aggression or material indulgence. User:Brando03 24:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Racialism could absorb this in part. I thought at one point we had the "Americans are not an ethnic group" caveat, but I don't see it now. Marskell 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There

The two fundamental sentences of the intro are sourced. I have tried to keep the language close to the sources. I couldn't find "critics call it propaganda" immediately, but I'm sure somebody can dig up Chomsky. For the "strongly debated" we have this lecture from O'Connor very recently, though I can't access the PDF for now. We can also use "Does Anti-Americanism Exist?", Toinet, 1990 whom O'Connor cites.

While I have already left a note on her talk page, I must also say that Christianm's adding five citations requests and removing headlines was an exercise in WP:POINT. Please bring things to talk. However, perhaps it was for the best as the intro is now sourced. Marskell 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the dic-defs [2] [3]. Marskell 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk before radical revision

Anti-American sentiment, more often in the U.S. media Anti-Americanism, is a term with varying interprerations:

• Anti-Americanism is criticism toward the United States policies. No, that's not the thesis of O'Connor. This remains the best cite for "a grab-bag of criticisms."
• Anti-Americanism is international opposition against the United States policies.. Can this be read on-line? Specified title for a general point.
• Anti-Americanism is sentiment hostile to the United States. Ugg. No. Replaces specific wording with general.
• Anti-Americinism is often a propaganda word that is used to label criticism or suggestions as irrational. Still no cite. Chomsky, please--somebody.

Groups described as Anti-American are highly diverse, for example: French intellectuals, Americans critical about the U.S. policies (if the target's nationality is known to the speaker, the word unamerican is often used), Islamist fundamentalists and Latin American entrepreneurs. Independent from which definition is used, the phenomenon is seen to have increased significantly since the beginning of the George W. Bush's first presidential term, major increases observed with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and event such as discoveries of Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and CIA torture flights.

In countries such as Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom, surveys indicate that anti-American sentiment is mostly due the president Bush's policies. However, in Latin America, anti-American sentiment has deeper roots, tracing to traumas of U.S.-supported dictators as well as direct economic and military interventions. In Japan and South Korea, much of the anti-American sentiment is related to rude behavior of American military personnel, accelerated by sexual and other crimes commited by them, and economic or political abuse by the U.S. goverment.. Please this isn't about GWB

Please, this is about Anti-Americanism.--Christinam 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on "use of the term". There are some new cites in the latter section that could be incorporated there. Marskell 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to Marskell's latest compromise version. It's more balanced, and moves the detail out of the intro into the body of the article. The burning flag picture is more suitable for the lead. Maybe the Guantanamo protest could go further down in a section where it's topical. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just defining the term leaves understanding of anti-Americanism fatally flawed. We could as well just simply say that anti-Americanism is opposition to U.S. policies as this the general view held by all sources and leave more accurate definition to a relavant section, but we need to cover the summarized reasons of anti-Americanism and its significance in 21th century international politics. Why is burning flag more suitable? See above comments by me and other contributors.--Christinam 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The flag burning is more suitable for the intro because it's more general. The Guantanamo protest is better for Post Cold War era. The detail belongs in the body of the article. The bullet-point intro reads as tendentiously hostile to the US, and concentrates too much on the present day. I also dislike the bullet points, mostly for aesthetic reasons. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "more general" mean? Burning flag is a rare and extreme protest, it's very nnpov. See, when you look at, for instance, article Anti-Arabism, it doesn't first depict a picture of sliced Palestinian/Iraqi girl. A protests against Guantanamo Bay is an excellent picture, because it's a protest about such a common concern of what is generally understood as Anti-Americanism. Eh, summarizing reasons of Anti-Americanism is "details"? If that's details, then what is not details?

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should actually be a primary content of the summary (along with consequences of anti-Americanism). Anti-Americanism was nearly unexistant term until the 21th century, and nobody really connects the current phenomenon to anything earlier, so yes, it should focus on this day. Great, if you don't bullet points don't remove content but improve Wikipedia by modifying it to non-bullet form.--Christinam 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

User Marskell removed many important edit without any argument in the summary or discussion page.

Specifically, the removals were:

• Four major interprerations of Anti-Americanism. This is much better than simply stating one and then contesting it by others.
• The recent trends and reasons of Anti-Americanism as indicated by all research about the subject.
• Typical scene of Anti-American protest, with explanations of the connection.

Without any real arguments, I have to revert to the previous :version.--Christinam 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a pic that has the words Anti-Americanism in bold. Neither you, nor anyone else, has explained why a generic pic of people in hoods is a better visual cue for the topic.

Guantanamo Bay has been one of the most influential events to raise Anti-Americanism, and has been a symbol of Anti-American protests for years. It gives the reader both a sample of protest and connection to the reasons of Anti-Americanism. A picture of book gives about zero information.--Christinam 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a "Use of term"; you want to introduce French intellectuals and Latin American businessmen into the intro when very obviously the body should absorb specifics.

You are radically changing an intro that has stood for a year. I'm sorry, but you need to talk about that--specifically, in length, over days if necessary, before changing. --Marskell 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary should give the reader a comprehensive understanding of the subject in a brief space. Giving an overview of Anti-American groups with a few examples is important. See Wikipedia:Lead section. --Christinam 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to your version already, added two sources and corrected a few typos. Your version is clear and rational, no twisted weasel wording and hidden meanings. Perfect. Rkrichbaum 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No probs. I'll do my 24 hour thing and revert when I can until we get a disinterested party. Can either respond to the specifics? For instance, why your pic is better? And, incidentally, are you seperate people? It's sort of neat... Marskell 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem interested: I happened upon this article only some three weeks ago and was surprised that something inept and biased as this was allowed to stand at Wikipedia where everything should be neutral. I was less than surprised when a person going by the moniker "marielleh" made some urgently required changes and I supported these. You may recall that this was accompanied by a number of contributions to the talk, see above.

Now christinam made other changes, rendering a new and better intro to the article (without changing anything below). In contrast to the previous version that you seem to support with great vigor, christinam's version was written in clear language, well sourced (I added a few myself) and unbiased.

It is a mystery to me why someone would cling to an intro that pretends to give a definition, however oddly worded ("denotes an often disparate range", "an undifferentiated" but nevertheless "coherent" ... "phenomenon that configures", my goodness, all these big words) - when a definition that many agree upon let alone a scientific one does not exist, and we have to rely on the actual usage of the term - which was clearly outlined by christinam.

Not one of your cited sources bear out what you or whoever formulated this insist to put in the intro: that "anti-Americanism" has been described as "an actual ideological movement and belief system" or a "phenomonen", however "undifferentiated", "that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening, independently of the real attributes of the nation".

If you believe otherwise, provide the quotes verbatim. I asked you before, and you took it as a personal insult, for whatever reason. Can you quote where Rubinstein/Smith or Caesar describe anti-Americanism as a "undifferentiated/coherent" phenomenon "that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening, independently of the real attributes of the nation" (don't forget the last part). And please explain how a phenomenon configures something. Thank you. Rkrichbaum 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my above comments in full? "Any hostile action or expression that becomes part and parcel of an undifferentiated attack on the foreign policy, society, culture and values of the United States" That's the Rubinsteing/Smith quote verbatim, cited in O'Connor. There a large number of other quotes I noted to you above.

Yes, I read your comments in full. Your two annotations do not bear out what your definition says. In your definition, "undifferentiated" is a qualification of the "phenomenon" that somehow configures the US as threatening, "independently of the real attributes of the nation". The Rubinstein/Smith quote that you cite from O'Connor qualifies as "undifferentiated" not some phenomenon, but an "attack on the ... US", which simply means that an "anti-American" attack in their opinion does not signify a specific criticism. They do not say that such an attack is "independent(ly) of the real attributes of the nation".

The rest is uncollaborative in the extreme. I added "disparate range" precisely to address concerns brought up here; if you think it "too big", choose other diction. "Coherent" is used in the negative: "cannot be isolatated as a coherent phenomenon."

"Coherent" is used in the negative, but it immediately follows the sentence discussed above, and you begin with a qualification: "However".

"However, it has also been suggested Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a coherent phenomenon ..."

Which posits a contradiction to the preceding sentence, suggesting that the "phenomenon" previously characterised as "undifferentiated" must have been described as "coherent" - otherwise it would make little sense to "also" suggest otherwise.

"it has also been suggested Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a coherent phenomenon and that the term is merely a rough composite of stereotypes, ...". - Another, minor criticism here: I think it is more accurate to say here that "the term signifies" a rough composite rather than "is" one. Anti-Americanism is a rough composite of several things, but not "the term". Rkrichbaum 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you honestly think an intro that starts with a dig at the U.S. media and subsequently defines the concept in terms of anti-Bush sentiment is less biased then we obviously have a problem here. This article tries to make clear that the phenomenon (is that really a big word?) is as old as the country.

I think the "dig" has been removed, the anti-Bush thing, or rather mentioning that the rising level of what is labelled anti-Americanism is very much dependent on current policies of the US is pertinent. Whether it is appropriately positioned at the beginning of the article may be worth debating. But there are many sources to the effect that anti-Americanism is directly related to the role of the US on the world stage, which obviously has changed over time. Before WWII, as you yourself have noted, the term didn't even exist. Claiming that "the" phenomenon is as old as the country is absolutely, totally, and hopefully not purposely misleading. Rkrichbaum 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A Bush-dependent intro is inaccurate, "recentist", and just invites edit wars. I'll tell you what will happen to this intro: it will stand, maybe a month or two, but probably not a quarter, and some Pro-American newbie will come along and think "what is this bullshit?", gut it and we'll have the same problem with the opposite POV. Well written? Points 1, 2, 3:

• "is criticism toward..."
• "is international opposition..."
• "is sentiment hostile..."

These were all covered by "hostile" in the original first sentence. Only the fourth point on propaganda was distinct, and that sentence is still here. Marskell 07:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hostile has entirely different meaning than criticism and opposition. As research on the subject universally points out, the vast majority of anti-Americanism is criticism and opposition. Perhaps we should remove the word hostile as all that is already covered by "opposition".--Christinam 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The dic defs [4] [5] use opposed and hostile. If hostile is "entirely different" from opposition, why should we remove it as "covered by" it? I think opposed or hostile per the dic's is best.

Hostile is an extreme form of opposition.--Christinam 08:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

While you're here, please note my last edit. Marskell 08:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Christina, I just incorporated your points under a very logical heading? What's going on? Marskell 08:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The points need to be covered in the lead. The lead section should introduce the main points (what it is, where it comes from) and why anti-Americanism important (it has grown from nearly unexistant to a huge trend in recent years). It might be good to have a few words about possible implications as well (such as observed greater support to china).--Christinam 08:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"It has grown from nearly unexistant to a huge trend in recent years" is flatly untrue. Please see Cold War or read the various quotes from the 18th and 19th centuries provided. This page isn't about George Bush. You have cited WP:LEAD and I suggest you read it again. "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition." We had one, and you've removed it in place of four repetitive bullet points. It's over-specific, not in keeping with the article, and weights recent details as decisive over broad historical factors. And the picture sucks to boot. Moving it to Modern anti-Americanism was a fair compromise. You're also misquoting sources: the Princeton PDF does not say Western A-A is due to Bush; it points out that attitudes dipped because of him. Marskell 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote or source for the 'use of the term' anti-American in the 18th or 19th century. Thank you.

Christina's definition may be characterised as "ostensive". Which makes sense since "the term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood or because of the nature of the term". The "intensional" definition previously attempted was vague, unauthoritative and in part self-contradictory, as has been pointed out to you numerous times by now.

The picture doesn't suck at all. Not only is it pertinent to the article, it is also pleasing to the eye, despite its subject. Please explain why advertising a book of an outspoken anti-anti-American ideologue makes sense IYO. Rkrichbaum 11:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And on what basis have you decided "sentiment" is better? Every one of your cites uses "-ism". Marskell 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO (and, contrary to certain insinuations, I cannot speak for others), the "-ism" is misleading. People might infer that it implies "a school of thought" which it doesn't. At least not necessarily. Rkrichbaum 11:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Last things, first: if every one of our sources uses "-ism", then we to use it to. You can't cherry-pick the terminology that suits your POV. The book cover says Anti-Americanism (hey wow, matches our article title) and it has a picture of an American flag being burnt, which is indeed a common symbol of Anti-American protest. There are 100-odd pics here [6] that you might check.

So the book cover repeats the title and the first word of the first paragraph. How is this overredundancy useful? It has a picture, presumably a collage produced by a graphics artist, depicting a symbolic act of disrespect, with connotations of violence and gloom. I have been at many protests, also against US policies, and there was never an American flag being burnt. In Europe, at least, this is not a "common form of protest" against the US. I realize that elsewhere they seem to like burning up stuff more often, be it effigies or whatever, but the flag burning seems to be mostly an issue in the US, with the proposed law against it and so on. I do not put much stake in this, but what I most dislike about this picture is that it is unspecific and not authentic. Why not take a real photo of a real protest and explain what the protest was about? Rkrichbaum 13:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--Christinam 17:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The pic now has one POV in mind: look at how bad the U.S. is. And please save it if you're going to try tell me that wasn't the intention.

If anti-Neonazi protestors in Germany demonstrate by cutting hair and clothes and imitating gas chamber, is it "POV look at how bad nazis are" or rather "look, this is how they demonstrate and that is their concern"?--Christinam 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How was the old line less vague? It matches the dic-defs and, no, there was no self-contradiction. Now we have: "...is a sentiment against the United States." This isn't ostensive--it's non-denotative to the point of being trivial. I don't understand what the problem with "hostile" is.

Look at dict definition of hostile, it's pretty different from opposing. As stated by your sources, majority of those anti-American opinion do not have anything fundamental against U.S. itself: they just oppose U.S. political policies since 2000-2001.--Christinam 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But you know what, I can live with debating the first three or four sentences. It's the elaboration on recent events in the last half that truly doesn't belong. I'm going to post something I posted to Christina here.

"Why not:

My Lai and Vietnam?

Colonialism and the Spanish-American war? If this were 1906, surely you'd want to include the Phillippine insurrection.

What about the Texas Annexation? What about American slavery?

This is precisely why details belong in the body and not in the lead."

Why, where, how and implications precisely belong to the lead.--Christinam 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be summative; this lead is a grab-bag of details.

And I'm not going to take the bait on use of the term in the 19th century. Like "Middle Ages," "totalitarianism," "Antiquity," "C.E." and "B.C.E," this is a perfectly fine term to apply retroactively. Marskell 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Expanded beginning: User:Marskell/AA. There's some good new info here, such as first use of the term and the long excerpt from Philippe Roger is definitely a plus. To anticipate the first objection, "irrational" is sourced to Hollander--in fact, the title of the book is Anti-Americanism:Irrational and rational. O'Conner calls it the the "most detailed study" of the topic so I think it's a fair source, though no, I haven't read it. Basically, any theoretical angle on the topic gets a mention in this intro. The "use of the term" is just that--etymology and deployment in context.

Oh, and to be clear about one thing: everything Christina added is still here under "The world at large" (come up with a better section heading if you like). In fact, I expanded it slightly. Marskell 18:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on it. --Christinam 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert to Christina's last version. The current definition still leaves much to be desired whereas Christina's last version is concise, easier to understand and omits unnecessary attempts of defining something that cannot be easily defined, and references that do not fit, apperently.

Specifically:

"Contemporary analysis of anti-Americanism typically focuses on ...

Superfluous - it is enough to say what it focuses upon, nobody is interested that "contemporary analysis of aA tpically" does.

"Interpretations of anti-Americanism have often been polarized. It has been described as an undifferentiated [1] ..."

Rubinstein/Smith do not say that the "phenomenon" of anti-Americanism is undifferentiated, they say that only attitudes that are part and parcel of an "undifferentiated attack" on the US etc should be considered anti-American (presumably in the the context of their study).

"... and irrational phenomenon [2] that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening in their entirety [3]."

Caesar does not say that anti-Americanism configures the US and the Awol as "threatening in their entirety". He says it configures "something associated with" the United States, something "at the core of American life", is deeply wrong and threatening."

When it is further mentioned that "the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States [4]." it should also be mentioned that the term has also been described as "la lutte contre un système, contre une conception de l'homme et d'un mode de vie." (Roger Garaudy, Qu’est-ce que l’anti-américanisme ? http://www.philosophie.org/garaudy1.html). Rkrichbaum 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tweak the wording, if you like. You're very precise in analyzing mine and yet you think this "Independent from which definition is used, the phenomenon is seen to have increased significantly since, or given birth by, the beginning of the George W. Bush administration"

Leaving aside the atrocious syntax, "given birth by" the administration of George W. Bush? This is a joke. Marskell 06:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And am I correctly translating: "a fight versus a system, versus a conception of man and a way of life."? How is this out of keeping with what I had? Marskell 06:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points about citation

• "Some of the most common criticisms of the United States involve:" According to who are these the most common?

• Under Criticisms of anti-Americanism, some of these are cited, but many are not.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that history section mostly lacks citations.--Christinam 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Step-by-step. If we can accept the compromise of having modern info under the modern section, then we can work on the rest of it. Three long-standing editors have now stood up to say this intro belongs, and note I have a fuller version of it addressing outstanding concerns. You tell me above "thanks for your work on it" and then you revert minutes later!

The history is derived in large part from Caesar BTW. It certainly can be sourced, but I'm not getting down to business there until you stop holding this page hostage. Marskell 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd note that pushing edits without participating in the discussion page is inappropriate. Your edit has been contested and you should respond to the opposition.--Christinam 17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. All I've been doing is attempting to respond to you! I provided a compromise: a whole new section for all of your work. Honestly, scroll through this page and tell me I have not attempt to address contested points. I spent half my wiki-time yesterday on a proposed intro and incoporating your points. Marskell 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the Guantanamo photo is inappropriate

This article is about a term some people are using and the debate over who and what it applies to, if it exists at all. To use the term in the article to describe a certain protest is take a side in that debate, falling under WP:OR. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's the use of the term "anti-American" in the caption that bothers you, why not just change the caption? Say, "Guantanamo bay has often been cited as a source of hostility towards the US government", or something like that. You can't possibly deny that Guantanamo has been a source of hostility, we could cite 100 sources shoing that. Cadr 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The photo is WP:OR with or without a caption. If you include the photo with a caption about it being a source of hostility to the U.S. (or even without a caption at all) you are still theorizing about the sources of hostility to the U.S., the debate about which is the subject of the article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How would I be "theorizing" about it or doing OR? Are you suggesting that there aren't any sources indicating a link between Guantanamo bay and hostility to the US?! Of course we can if you like attribute the opinion that GB contributes to anti-US sentiment to a source, but that won't be difficult. Cadr 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming link was already citated from multiple studies on the subject, but those edits were removed by Marskell.--Christinam 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this in a different way. The question in this article goes like this: Is Anti-Americanism something of unknown origin that exists independently of the policies and real attributes of the United States, or is it a pejorative label applied to criticism of the U.S. to try and discredit that criticism? To use that photo--a protest against U.S. policy--in the article is to clearly support the second position. I called it WP:OR because even if you provide links to opinion pieces about Gitmo and hostility to the USA, you are still using them to synthesize an interpretation of the term 'Anti-Americanism' that is not, to my knowledge, mentioned in any of those sources, however "overwhelming" they might be. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see that. We show the photo and say "some people think Gitmo has contributed to hostility towards the US, which may be seen as a compoment of 'anti-American sentiment' [cite]". All we need is a source saying that Gitmo has contributed to anti-Americanism -- there must be 100s. Of course different people have different views on what anti-Americanism is, or even whether it exists as something coherent. But that doesn't mean we can't cite people who think that it does exist, and who think that Gitmo has contributed to it. Cadr 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise I can live with the pic. I actually don't like it because, presumably, it's Americans themselves protesting their own gov't, while this page is almost wholly about the wider world. I think User:Tom Harrison observed, for instance, that it might be better suited to "unamerican". Christina, please point out which citations were removed and I'll attempt to incorporate them. Marskell 17:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that it's Americans protesting thier own gov't? Gitmo has caused international outrage. Cadr 17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, certainly. It's just the pic was taken in Washington D.C. Marskell 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, sorry. Maybe a picture from Guantanamo itself would be more appropriate. Cadr 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cadr, what you just said:

    We show the photo and say "some people think Gitmo has contributed to hostility towards the US,  
   which may be seen as a compoment of 'anti-American sentiment' [cite]"

Is the definition of WP:OR. OR "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". If I'm not mistaken, I don't think any of your sources mention Gitmo or related protests in the context of the term Anti-Americanism. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rehpotsirhc, if you read what I wrote more carefully, I was suggesting that we cited a source which makes that link. Here is one I found after a couple of minutes gooling [7]. (Note that it's actually one of the sources quoted in that source (an article in the Economist) which makes the link; no doubt something more direct could be found with a bit more effort). Cadr 18:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I read and understood your comment. You might want to note that the source you posted doesn't appear to actually discuss the concept of Gitmo in the context of the term Anti-Americanism, but the issue of sources is periphial anyway. The picture, sourced or not, simply unbalances the article. The article is not about anyone and everyone who disagrees with one or more policies of the United States for whatever reason. It is about a specific type of opposition that exists outside of the realm of policy, the existence of which is fiercely debated. The inclusion of the picture amounts to a very strong stance in that debate. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You responded as if I wanted to present an unsourced synthesis, which I found confusing since from the beginning I've been quite clear that I want to source this properly. The source I posted does discuss the concept of Gitmo in the context of the term Anti-Americanism:

The piece concludes by pointing out that recent polls show anti-Americanism in many cases may have much to do with the reelection of George W. Bush and policies specific to the current administration, then saying:

"That is the, perhaps short-term, view of some non-Americans. It is accompanied by another view, increasingly common among pundits, which holds that America is losing its allure as a model society. Whereas much of the rest of the world once looked to the United States as a beacon, it is argued, non-Americans are now turning away. Democrats in Europe and elsewhere who once thought religiosity, a belief in capital punishment and rank hostility to the United Nations were intermittent or diminishing features of the United States now see them as rising and perhaps permanent. Such feelings have been fortified by Mr Bush’s doctrine of preventive war, ----> Guantánamo <----, opposition to the world criminal court and a host of other international agreements. One way or another, it is said, people are turning off America, not so much to hate it as to look for other examples to follow—even Europe’s. If true, that could be even more insulting to Americans than the rise in the familiar anti-Americanism of yesteryear."

And that's just one source, after a quick Google. Do you honestly believe that we won't be able to find other sources linking anti-Americanism to Guantanamo? I just don't see how having the picture -- together with an appropriate source -- unbalances the article. Recent developments which may increase anti-American sentiment according to some people are perfectly appropriate in the article on anti-Americanism. Unless you think that we shouldn't give any specific examples at all? The article is full of references to far more minor influences on public opinion (e.g. American English usage). I will give up eventually, I just honestly don't understand quite what you're getting at. Regarding sourcing, you're shifting your ground. First it's OR becuase there's not source linking Gitmo to anti-Americanism, and that's why we can't have it (your comment at 18:08). Apparently now we can't have it even if it isn't OR. Help! Cadr 23:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right--there has been a lot of shifting around in this discussion, and it isn't helping to make what is admittedly a pretty fine point any clearer. So let me establish something first: my objection is to the inclusion of the photo, not the information. A picture creates a powerful impression that it is hard to "take back" with words, and so has a special capacity to unbalance an article. Please don't try and apply my argument to any text or other things that are not a photo.

Now, let's forget about OR for a second. The idea that Anti-Americanism is something that can be increased or decreased by the policies of the United States is itself both a matter of debate and a central theme of the article. Labeling the photo 'Anti-Americanism,' as I said, is taking a clear side in this debate. Including the photo without this claim is more subtle, but equally harmful. When a reader unfamiliar with the term and the debate scrolls down to the subhead, he will see the photo (which will be assumed to be an example of Anti-Americanism whether or not it is labeled, sourced, disclaimed, weasel-worded, or whatever) and this will foster an impression that Anti-Americanism is simply criticism of the US or its policies. The fact is, most people who use the term use it in an entirely different sense that has little or nothing to do with policy. This is why inclusion of the photo is unbalancing regardless of whether or not any claims in its caption are sourced.

To go back to what I said about OR--I think if you'll take a second look at your source, you'll see that it is unsuitable to be used to address the question of whether or not the protest qualifies as Anti-Americanism. You'll need a little more than cameos from the words 'Guantanamo' and Anti-Americanism'. Earlier, I was doing a poor job of saying that if you actually find a source that discusses this, I feel like I might be more receptive to the picture's inclusion, WITHOUT the caption that arbitrarily labels it Anti-Americanism. But this feeling of mine is mitigated by extreme doubt that you'll ever find such a source. It seems as if the reason you're so confident that you're going to find this source--that discusses Gitmo in the context of Anti-Americanism--is because you're simply replacing the term 'Anti-Americanism' with something along the lines of 'criticism of the United States' in your mind, which makes it almost self-evident that you will find it. What you are actually looking for is a study or opinion piece from a reputable source that argues Gitmo protests are an example of Anti-Americanism, without taking it for granted. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't repeat what Rkrichbaum has said below. Regarding my source, it does discuss Guantanamo in the context of anti-Americanism! It lists several causes of anti-Americanism, in which Guantanamo is included. What more do you want? Also, the caption does not "label" any anti-Americanism (or at least it need not). It would say that "Some people [cite] think that Guantanamo has contributed to anti-Americanism". Cadr 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the Guantanamo photo is not inappropriate

rehpotsirhc says: "The idea that Anti-Americanism is something that can be increased or decreased by the policies of the United States is itself both a matter of debate and a central theme of the article. Labeling the photo 'Anti-Americanism,' ... is taking a clear side in this debate."

This interpretation of the images' content and function seems to be lacking. Let's approach this from a neutral POV. What is depicted here is a reenactment of a scene: prisoners of war in a typical subdued position and clad in prisoner garment typical either for the Guantánamo camp (or similar facilities e. g. Abu Ghraib) or rather for prisoners on their way there. The viewer will immediately recognise this from press fotos that show such prisoners in similar clothes and positions.

How does this refer to "Anti-Americanism"?

First, the captives are held because of their suspected actions and/or attitudes that are "Anti-American". Whether or not these anti-American attitudes and actions are rational or irrational, maybe based on concepts and views that configure the US and the American way of life as threatening, is subject to debate and analysis by experts and commentators. The picture does not make any comment on this either way. The reenactment simply demonstrates goings-on that are undisputed. Goings-on that are clearly related to the (at least suspected) anti-American activities of the Afghan or Arab POW in Guantánamo. (Reputable sources in support of the view that they are anti-American can be provided.)

Second, the reenactment is a protest by anti-American protesters. Whether or not these anti-American protesters act rationally or irrationally, maybe based on concepts and views that configure the US and the American way of life as threatening at its core, is subject to debate and analysis by experts and commentators. One commentator e.g. ascribes "antipathy for the US" as a motive to those with "defense of democracy agendas" that seek legal action against the US for her treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo:

"Or consider the assault on our terrorist incarceration center at Guantanamo Bay. (...) According to The New York Times white shoe law firms have been mobilized by anti-American radical and lifelong advocate of Communist causes Michael Ratner to obstruct America's war effort and attempt to free the soldiers of the enemy. (...)

The shared antipathy for the United States between open self-declared enemies like Galloway and Zarqawi and "liberals" who detest both is what allows liberals -- like the Wall Street lawyers mobilized by Ratner -- to be recruited to the destructive agendas of the anti-American jihad.

As noted, their entrance into the jihad is through such defense of democracy agendas as the abuses at Abu Ghraib (...), the detaining of al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo and the effort to strengthen internal security controls." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18223

Third, nowhere in the image is a clue to the effect that "anti-Americanism" might change if policies of the US are being changed.

Therefore it is impossible to conclude that the image, or using it as an illustration for "anti-Americanism", takes a stance in the discussion whether or not "anti-Americanism" can be characterised as rational criticism or irrational prejudice.

As to the possibility of increasing or decreasing anti-American sentiment by changing US policies, the image itself does not contain any clues in favor of either position. People who use the term in a sense that has little or nothing to do with policy might argue that the anti-American protester will quickly find another topic once the camps are closed.

Nevertheless, what has emerged from Guantanomo may have increased anti-American sentiment. At least claims to this effect have been made by reputable sources that can be cited:

"Testimonials and photographs of atrocities emerging from Guantánamo feed anti-American sentiment. 'Guantánamo provides rhetorical fodder for politicians seeking to bring down United States-allied rulers in their own countries,' the New York Times reported. 'It offers a ready rallying point against American dominance, even in countries whose own police and military have been known for severe violations of human rights.'" Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, President-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052305B.shtml Rkrichbaum 17:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rkrichbaum, I think you misunderstand my argument. You said: "the reenactment is a protest by anti-American protesters." In other words, you just asserted the protestors are Anti-American without question, when my point is precisely that it is very debatable whether or not those protestors are part of the phemonenon known as Anti-Americanism.

Let's examine what we know about these protestors. We know that they oppose a policy of the United States--the detainment of captives at Gitmo; our knowledge ends there. So is this Anti-Americanism? Only if Anti-Americanism is simply criticism of the United States, outlined by the article as one POV. If Anti-Americanism is the phemonenon described by Revel and most of the other sources for the article, if it doubtful that the Gitmo protests would be classified under it, because they are simply a manifestation of criticism of policy--and only one policy at that.

Maybe you didn't read carefully and missed the quote of a noted commentator who described critics of the practices in Guantánamo as participants in an "anti-American jihad". I did not assert anything, my account was merely descriptive. As I pointed out earlier, a widely accepted scholarly definition of "Anti-Americanism" within the realms of political science does not exist. Semantically, the term denotes attitudes and activities in opposition or hostile to (anti = against) the US (government, e.g.). Protests against policies (and no, it is not "only one policy", how did you reach that conclusion? A whole bunch of issues are involved here: torture, due process, detainment of foreign nationals, invasions without UN authorisation; more generally: role of the military, self-assertive attitude of the US on international stage, etc. etc.) that are well known and debated worldwide are often characterised as anti-American. More specific characterisations are subject to debate among experts and commentators, as I noted above. Rkrichbaum 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You said: "the captives are held because of their suspected actions and/or attitudes that are "Anti-American"." I agree--I do not object to a photo of actual Gitmo detainees. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you'd be fine with a photo of the real detainees? I would also be fine with that. Cadr 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture posted in the section below is a nice compromise. It combines Anti-detainment sentiment with actual Anti-American sentiment. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy with the new picture too. Looks like we're all agreed then, who'd have thunk it? Cadr 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance

I sometimes wonder if it attracts the most intractable editors to this article. Tfine80 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just blame this fella for everything. It's easier than resorting to psychological explanations ;). Marskell 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, with a little psychology it is even easier to use this phenomenon. Rkrichbaum 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The lists

I actually wonder if we might turn the lists into prose. They're bloody ugly and it's rather like having a banner: "everyone add your own pet peeve or rebuttal here." We might actually start with the "Criticisms of Anti-Americanism". It's too long to begin with. Marskell 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but then the prose lists will explode with every objection to US policies ever made. It has already proven impossible to maintain such a section. Tfine80 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Summarized discussion

• A fatal problem, the introduction is not in line with most research on the subject, such as by Anti-Americanism Research Group at Princeton University
  • First and most importantly, the current introduction draws anti-Americanism mainly as irrational, while nearly all research on the subject is draws the clear lines between American foreign policies and the rise of anti-Americanism (plus special cases like North Korea).
  • No talk about the estimated consequences of anti-Americanism, it should be mentioned in the introduction to introduce reader why the subject is so important.
• Citated sources get modified. In Latin America, the sources specifically explain economic and military operations plus U.S.-maintained regimes, not "U.S. military in the region". Same with Middle-East: it's essential information how unpopularity of Saudi Arabian regime and close ties with U.S. are related. (also Egypt and several others)
• We should have discussion on polls and trends observed in them, with a few different examples like Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia and India.
• Pictures exercise pov. Maybe we should get rid of them all.

I think you aren't making a distinction between Anti-American sentiment and Anti-Americanism. If Anti-Americanism is intrinsically defined as something irrational, you could argue that it doesn't exist even if Anti-American sentiment were increasing. Tfine80 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And I find the idea that its presented "mainly as irrational" odd. One sentence presents that suggestion. Propaganda, "plural of", the debate over constructive criticism/real prejudice all get a their own mention.

If you're suggesting we need a discussion on polls and trends in the intro, emphatically no. Summation in lead, details in body.

I can live with a sentence or two on "consequences" (loss of allies, prestige etc.) in the intro. Marskell 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Request

A request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation regarding this page. It's at the top there. Please note RfM is not the place for "so-and-so doesn't know what s/he's talking about blah blah blah." You go, you sign on to mediation, and then you wait. You don't have to sign if you feel we're closer to resolution here, but we very clearly are not. Marskell 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)