From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeAnti-Americanism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
August 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 20, 2008Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee

Non US English[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick note:

...endlessly repetitive "semantic block"

is usually called "narrative".

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

Proposed split[edit]

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

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

Overall POV issue[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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