Talk:Anti-Americanism

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

Bad Quotation?

Is this quote right - I don't have the source, but I don't think the grammar is right. "the belief that what underlies all U.S. actions is a desire to take over or remake the world"

Canadian anti-americanism

I have a hard time believing that the Canadian viewpoint is not mentioned here. Canada is the birthplace of anti-americanism (Empire Loyalists) and must still be the most consistent in these beliefs. While Canadians do not burn flags, they are Canadians after all, smoldering resentment is stronger in Canada than any other place I have ever travelled to. The national sport of Canada is not hockey if one measures by minutes of water cooler talk, it is anti-americanism. Any American who moves to Canada is considered an American forever... something that is not true of any other nationality. Why? Live there for awhile and you'd see that the metaphor of "sleeping with the elephant" is not too far from the truth. To quote former Mexican president de la Madrid, 'so far from God, so close to the united States", although of course he was referring to Mexico...

All of that is your POV. In fact, the majority of this article is just the POV of Wikipedia editors. The whole thing is a travesty of neutrality. Noloop (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is data to back up this POV. Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet. It is also the only country that makes laws with the aim of denying Americans employment, particularly in higher education. There needs to be a whole section on Canada, and we need to be honest here, and I hope that Canadians are honest about this for a change. We are not going to get anywhere through denying that Canada has a problem.

I do not think that you quite grasp how Wikipedia works. If you think that "Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet", it is up to you to provide sources to back up such a claim. My feelings are that you will have a hard time finding any reliable sources for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I started this topic and I am glad it sparks some discussion. I agree that there needs to be references for anything that gets into the main article, but unfortunately there probably has never been research to confirm or deny statements like "Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet" because it is too controversial. I agree with this statement but so what. I also agree that there needs to be a whole section on Canada (and the historical evolution of anti-americanism in Canada), I agree that we need to be completely honest about it (and I am Canadian). I completely disagree that it is important to see it as a problem. It is simply a national phenomenon with many causes, some historical and some emotional, some valid and some invalid. -KG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.135.182 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is the lack of a definition of anti-americanism, in the article as well as in this talk page section. So far it sounds more like POV (and OR at best), which should probably be taken to another place (as per WP:NOTFORUM). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada is definitely NOT the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet! There are many countries that would like to lay a claim to the title, with Iran in front by a whisker over Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, closely followed by Cuba, Russia, Syria, Spain, Germany, France and dozens of other countries! PomsWin (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Where Americans are concerned, Canadians are the nastiest people on the planet. Canadians are obsessed with the idea of hurting America and Americans. They feel this can best be accomplished by stopping all exports of oil, gas, water, and electricity to the US. Now, the Canadians wouldn't do this without a good reason; such as an American Border Guard telling a Canadian to get out of his vehicle without saying please. This is a true example. Check out the CBC Website. Canadians love to respond to news articles. That's where you'll find this stuff. In connection with the export stuff above, Canadians are sent into paroxysms of ecstasy visualizing tens of millions of "Americans shivering in their cold dark homes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.229.144 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say, Canadians feel that cutting off those exports will bring America to it's knees in a few days, with a valuable lesson learned. No other outcome is allowed to intrude itself into their thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.229.144 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need an article on anti-Canadianism here in the United States judging by some opinions here. 129.2.12.84 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Middle East

WebHamsrter keeps adding this material asserting that it just says what the cites say, and isn't POV.

The term "Great Satan"[66][67], as well as the chant "Death to America"[68] have been in continual use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69] The Iranian capital Tehran has many examples of anti-American murals and posters sponsored by the state; the former U.S. Embassy in the city has been decorated with a number of such murals.[70][71]

As I've pointed out more than once, none of the cites actually say what the article says. The first two don't say "continual use...since...1979". The latter two don't say Tehran is decorated with a number of anti-american murals. The paragraph misrepresentes other authors on the Web, and argues for POV regarding Iran and anti-Americanism. Please stop reinserting it. Noloop (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The references in this paragraph simply don't support the paragraph. (One of the references for "in use since 1979" is dated 1995 and wouldn't be a valid source for what's happpened in the last 14 years anyway.) There is no excuse for reverting without discussion. Noloop (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The first para which you keep deleting "The Great Satan!" is supported by 2 references which demonstrate that this is indeed an anti-American slur. But for some strange reason you delete it. The second para is supported by a reference that does indeed state that the first use was in 1979. It doesn't matter if the article was created in 1995 or 2008, the fact that it was first used in 1979 is still the case and if it was used again in 1995 then it is indeed correct to used the "used since" wording. The fact remains though that as you are trying to remove a referenced paragraph that has been in the article for quite a while then the onus is on you to garner consensus to remove it. Until you do I suggest you either leave it alone or rewrite it. Do not delete it. --WebHamster 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Nothing can "demonstrate" that something is anti-American, as this article itself points out. As you, in fact pointed out, "anti-American" is a POV term.

2. The 1st ref is an opinion piece of one writer. It's valid as ref for nothing except that some writer had that opinion. What that ref actually says is that "Ayatollah Khomeini famously dubbed it, as the "Great Satan"." That is the only reference to that term in the article. It says nothing about being the term being "in use." (The phrase "in use" is so vague it's meaningless anyway.) It says nothing about "Death to America."

4.The 2nd ref is also an analysis, not factual reporting. It is written, not by a neutral source, but by the "Director of Threat Analysis in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations" It is published by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a US military organization. Gee, I was expecting the US military to say Iran is mellow, weren't you? Valid references are neutral, and they are factual. Nonetheless, the article doesn't support the reference. It's only claim, which is an opinion, is that (in 1995, when it was written) the "United States continues to represent the Great Satan." That's an author interpretation. So, 14 years ago one person in the US military said the Iranian government thought of the US that way. Says nothing about being "in use" since any time. There is no mention of "Death to America" at all.

5. The last part of the paragraph claims there are many anti-American murals in Tehran. The 1st ref for that is one picture with no article and no claims by any source.

6.The 2nd ref makes no mention of anti-Americanism at all. It's an article written by a photographer describing her exhibition. It's not a basis for reporting as fact that Tehran is has many anti-American murals. Noloop (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you QUOTE the part of the refs you think support the text in question, as a starting point for working toward consensus? Noloop (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You say: "6. The 2nd ref makes no mention of anti-Americanism at all. It's an article written by a photographer describing her exhibition." The source says: "Though less numerous than those depicting the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the most thematically persistent murals have featured anti–United States and anti-Israeli images". 76.117.1.254 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3O

Hi folks. Third opinion on offer here. If I understand the disagreement properly, it revolves around the following;

i) Whether "the Great Satan" is a current term used in Iran to refer to America (?)/USA.

ii) Whether there is evidence to indicate the frequency of use of "Death to America" chants. I think everyone is accepting the start date of 1979.

iii) Whether there is evidence for Tehran having many anti-American murals or not

I would suggest that if any of the three disputed points are accurate, noteworthy, and non fringe views (which is my, perhaps ill-informed, understanding), then it should be easy to come up with multiple RS's to that effect. I suspect you people are far better placed to chase these up than I am, but I offer these as possible useful starting points for i). You might consider these worth looking into for ii) and as far as iii) is concerned these might be useful, but I'll leave it to you to be the judge.

I think much of the dispute can be settled by wording that closely matches RS's rather than interpolating or synthesising what they might be saying. Some direct quotes might help too, and at the very least in the reference. I hope that's of some help. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd adjust the description of the dispute a bit.

i)Webhamster's rudeness as seen on his Talk page, in which he basically tells me to fuck off (not in so many words, but that's the gist).

ii)Whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to call anything anti-American

ii)Whether the sources are balanced, i..e. neutral weight.

I haven't followed all your links yet. The phrases "current term used" and "in use" are pretty vague. Is "The Roman Empire" a term currently "in use" in Europe? Sure. What about "Axis of Evil" Sure, in some context, sometimes. Does that prove America is racist against Persians?? The term "many" as in "many anti-American murals" is also POV. What's "many?" And what's anti-American? To a reader, it means hostile, hateful murals. To an Iranian it might mean a mural that truly describes the US. Can Wikipedia editors just decide their POV is right and the Iranians are wrong?Noloop (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were going to tell you to fuck off you would be in no doubt and "gist" wouldn't come up. The problem here lies both in your lack of understanding as to what consensus is (in Wikipedia) and the other is your own personal interpretation of the sources. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the way POV is treated here. The article itself can be about a POV so long as the editors writing it don't show any. As "anti-Americanism" is a POV the sources themselves will show signs of POV. The sources we are talking about are only being used to demonstrate that the comments in the prose exist in the real world, which of course they do. As for stupid comments such as "what's many" well I'm not sure how to explain it to someone who has to ask the question! It's more than a few, duh! The fact you are asking such inane questions demonstrates that you don't have a clue as to what this article is actually about, so how the hell do you expect to edit it? And what the hell are you on about with regard to the Iranian anti-American murals? Do you think we are talking about a nice rural scene painted of central Colorado? Sheesh! This is like ice skating up hill. --WebHamster 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Webhamster here. I originally read your point-by-point rebuttal and I thought you were right, but then looking at the sources and what the text says, the source do cover pretty well what is said in the text. Maybe more scholarly sources would be better, and a quick search in google books easily finds several books about the topic, confirming that the statement in the text is factual and relatively uncontroversial. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the "anti-US" reference, but it really doesn't matter. Calling something anti-US, or anti-American is an opinion and shouldn't be reported as fact in an encyclopedia. If it is a notable opinion, the fact of that opinion might be notable, but a photographer just describing their own photographs isn't notable. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your claim that these mural are not anti-US? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim they are not anti-US. I claimed that such discussion are about opinions rather than facts, and that some photographer discussing her pictures isn't a notable opinion. Noloop (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The next two paragraphs are equally bad. Neither of the polls say they are measures of anti-Americanism. The implication that having an "unfavorable" opinion is the same as being anti-American is POV. The Pew poll says nothing about "probing stereotypes". Has anybody actually gone through this whole article and checked the references? The majority of this article promotes propaganda.Noloop (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Seriously, now I can understand Webhamster. Read the opening paragraph. There is a definition of Anti-Americanism, that is, "opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States". Does the Pew poll measure "opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States". Yes, it does, because as the paragraph clearly says, it measures attitutes toward the US and the paragraph closely follows what the polls actually say. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1.The Pew Poll does nothing of the sort. The paragraph reflects little of what the source says. The source says nothing about stereotypes, but that's the gist of the paragraph. Even if it did, the source would be interpreting not measuring, and an encylopedia doesn't just repeat the opinions of sources.

2. As for the opening paragraphs, why don't you read...

"the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed."

"critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational"

"Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American."

"American academic Noam Chomsky... asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships; he compares the term to "anti-Sovietism", a label used by the Kremlin to suppress dissident or critical thought, for instance"

"...criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."

Given that background, it is hard to see how it's appropriate for editors to be deciding what Wikipedia shall consider anti-American, and what it shall not. It isn't a factual matter. Noloop (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, it seems there is a more fundamental issue here; should WP have an article on anti-Americanism. I would argue yes. It is a notable topic that a reader seeking to understand should be able to come to WP and be able to find further info. So, if there is to be an article, then it must conform to WP policies. The guts of this is not aiming for truth, but aiming for balanced coverage. There also is no room for OR. So I think it may be useful to consider the various sources for what is being written and ensure that they are stuck to closely. It sounds like much of that is happening. BUT what else seems to be needed is a section that addresses the various concerns associated with even having a phrase such as "anti-American" - and this section will also have to stick closely to RS. What do you think? Cheers Blippy (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraphs, which I excerpt above, are pretty good. They are balanced, and give an overview of the issue. In the opening paragraphs, Wikipedia isn't calling people anti-American. It doesn't imply the Middle East is chock full of anti-Americanism. It mentions criticism of the term, and defenses of it. It's the latter sections that veer into rampant POV--saying what's anti-American and what isn't. They don't just report what notable sources say. The other problem is the sourcing gets really bad in the later pargraphs, as I've argued above. I was wrong on a few points about the sources, but the larger point is intact. These problems are related. A poll finds that Middle Easterners have an "unfavorable" opinion of the US, and some editor puts that in this article as a factual case of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism. Noloop (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However regarding the rest of the article it fits the concluding sentence in the intro very well: "Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American".

I am a bit surprised about the definition though, "widespread opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States." With this kind of inclusiveness I would be hard pressed to think of any American that would not qualify as anti-American, because everyone I know has critized one or more of the policies of the United States at some point. However that is the definition, and there is no question that the subject is notable, that is simply not what is being discussed here. The problem seems to be that the article has evolved into a list of examples where everyone has included examples of what they think is anti-americanism or examples where someone has used the term anti-americanism. The article needs structure and clarity.

I would suggest that the article be divided into three main sections, each with a header that corresponds to the definition in the intro, that is anti-americanism as being either cases of opposition or hostility towards "people", "government" and "policies" respectively. Each section could then include examples of anti-americanism being used in each of these cases, perhaps followed by any criticism that may fit into each of these categories. Just a rough idea to get this somewhere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the dictionary definition is useless. Like you said, everybody is anti-American by that definition. It's good that the article specifies that this is something dictionaries tend to say, instead of the article saying so itself.

We can't give examples of anti-Americanism, because that would just be giving our opinion. We need to state facts, which can include the fact of some notable opinions. I think a section briefly listing/summarizing notable claims of anti-Americanism would be OK. We have to make sure we are not giving our opinion of a poll or action that seems anti-American to us (no matter how obvious to us). The point is that we shouldn't tell readers what to consider anti-American. We give them relevant info, and let them decide what to consider anti-American. The second half of this article goes way beyond that. Noloop (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"We have to make sure we are not giving our opinion of a poll or action that seems anti-American" - As if the section in question gives an opinion about how to interpret the results of the opinion poll. You must be kidding. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, putting the polls in an article on anti-Americanism suggests that we interpret them as evidence of anti-Americanism. The polls don't say that, though. The paragraph on the Pew research says it is about stereotypes Middle Easterners have, even though the poll does not say that. It is not even about the Middle East or the U.S.; it is about Muslims and Westerners, including European Muslims and Indonesia. The whole article is full of distorted refs like that. Noloop (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I've made the reasons for removing clear, but in an effort to stop the edit warring, I will summarize again. Basically, here are the problems:

1. The sources say nothing about anti-Americanism, so it is only the POV of W. editors to include them here.
2. The statements are not truly sourced, i.e. don't support the text.
3. the sources aren't notable.

The term "Great Satan"[66][67], as well as the chant "Death to America"[68] have been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69]

[66] says nothing about anti-Americanism. It is POV to interpret the source as evidence of anti-Americanism in Iran. (In the same context as discussing "Great Satan," it discusses Bush's terms ""axis of evil" and "outpost of tyranny".) [67] says nothing about anti-Americanism. It is 14 years old, and not a source of what has happened "since...1979". It is also a publication of the US military, and not neutral.

The Iranian capital Tehran has many examples of anti-American murals and posters sponsored by the state; the former U.S. Embassy in the city has been decorated with a number of such murals.[70][71]

[70] is just an image. It's not a source. [71] is a college student discussing her photos. It's not a basis for reporting, as fact, that there are "many examples of anti-American murals" It's not a basis for reporting a notable person has that opinion, because she's isn't notable.

What remains is: The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69] Noloop (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can keep wittering on with your own interpretations as much as you like but if they aren't gaining you any consensus for the removal of the sourced sections then you may as well not bother as without consensus the sourced sections stay. Oh and by the way, the ref for The Great Satan is there to demonstrate that it's a genuine term. Also references don't have to apply for the whole of the timeline, the fact they state it started in '79 is enough. Now as you are obviously someone who won't take advice from people who know the rules better than you I don't think I'll bother with any more explanations as you're obviously not listening. I'll just keep reverting any changes you make without consensus. Hopefully your memory will allow you to understand why. --WebHamster 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are the only person objecting, so "no consensus" is a non-reason for reverting.
• Your opinion is irrelevant unless you can give it in a civil manner, which you failed to do above. You're improving tho.
• "Demonstrating [something] is a genuine term" doesn't demonstrate relevance. The text doesn't say "'Great Satan'" is a genuine term," fortunately, since that would be meaningless.
• If you say something has been in use since 1979, the implication is that it is in use now. A 14-year old source can't do that.
• You addressed none of the problems with the text about murals, even though that is the main part of my edit. So, you haven't even attempted to explain the main part of your reversion.Noloop (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the requirement is for YOU to gain consensus to remove long-standing sourced material. You've had several editors tell you this yet you still won't listen. This is the last time I am going to spend on explaining things to you. You obviously have cognitive problems. Like I said I'm not going to spend any more time explaining the way things work to someone like you. You've already wasted both mine and several other editor's valuable time with your self-opinionated twaddle both here and in various other parts of the project. --WebHamster 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Woh! It seems things have revved up a bit here. OK, it seems to me that Noloop is making an attempt to stick closely to the sources. I haven't viewed them myself, but I think N's points seem reasonable at face value. In any case it seems the only disputed bits are dating the use of 'Great Satan' reliably, and an RS stating there are numerous examples of anti-American murals in Tehran. Surely this can't be too hard? Again, I haven't looked at the sources yet, but if they are compromised in the way Noloop suggests, it should be a simple matter to replace them with better ones - and it couldn't hurt to have better ones anyway. One of the strengths, but frustrating parts of WP is that it is constantly evolving, so I don't think it's valid to dismiss N out of hand WH. I'm happy to have a look for sources myself but may not get a chance for a little while, and I'm sure you folk are more expert than I in this regard. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing him out of hand. Unlike yourself I've actually read the sources, I've even tried to reword the article so the prose and the sources match, but noloop's obvious POV is getting in the way of neutrality. May I also suggest that perhaps you should have actually read the sources before replying in this manner? --WebHamster 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed - in fact I think you just did! Here's my first suggestion. Instead of running "Great Satan" and "Death to America" together, stick closely to [66] - so leave Noloop's sentence as is about the chant, but add "Many Iranians admire the US but it is still known as the "Great Satan". Just abandon [67] as a source, [66] is all we need in this instance.

Surely there's a better source than an ad for a photo exhibition? Even there the relevant bit is "Though less numerous than those depicting the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the most thematically persistent murals have featured anti–United States and anti-Israeli images", which supports Noloops assertion that it doesn't strictly say there are many anti-American murals - just that there are less than those about the two wars. As for [70] the photo that came up there was of a sign saying "On that day when United States of America will praise us we should mourn" which could mean anything - but even if we breach WP:OR and interpret it negatively, it certainly isn't demonstrating that there are many murals, and at best shows that the "number of such murals" is not zero. Hardly compelling. Surely this can't be all that hard to get some better sources on? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Webhamster, thanks for informing me of what I don't understand. I'll return the favor. You are the only person objecting. So, getting consensus means talking to you, and that's all.
2. The most basic problem is that editors have given their own examples of anti-Americanism. But, anti-Americanism is a POV term. None of the sources on "Great Satan" say anything about anti-Americanism. To Iranians, maybe it is a reaction to American imperialism (as they see it), not prejudice. Comparable to "Axis of Evil" in the West. It's not for Wikipedia to take a position on that. Sources for examples of anti-Americanism need to use that term themselves, and they need to be notable. Noloop (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm the only one arguing for it does not mean that you have consensus for removing it. So far you have none. Remember it's up to you to prove to additional editors that your arguments support the removal. So far it's me against, you for and Blippy on the fence. That does not make consensus in your favour. I don't need consensus in my favour as I'm not trying to change the status quo, I'm just trying to maintain it. As has been told you several times, the onus is on you to demonstrate the need for removal and then for multiple other editors to agree with you. That's what consensus means. I really despair sometimes.

Hmmm, let me see, is "The Great Satan" a compliment? I don't think so, it's a slur, therefore the name itself is a reflection of anti-American feeling. That's why it was used in the first place. Duh! --WebHamster 15:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To Blippy: Actually I think that 67 is better than 66 but it does no harm to keep both in. I do agree that 70 is next to useless so I'll remove it. In any case I've provided an additional reference that refers to "murals being dotted all around Tehran" or words to that effect (I'm working from memory here). --WebHamster 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The editorial says: "The anti-American murals that dot the streets of Tehran have been part of a domestic and regional struggle to define the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979, and not a literal declaration of foreign policy. " So, how do you go from an editorial expressing an opinion about "dotting" the streets, to a factual statement in an encyclopedia that there are "many" such murals? Noloop (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I can read English, you obviously can't. --WebHamster 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also supplied an additional reference that shows the "Death to America" chant was relevant up to at least 2007 --WebHamster 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address a single thing I said. The ref you added for the murals is an opinion piece by someone who doesn't seem notable. It cannot be stated as fact. And, unless the person is notable, it shouldn't be listed as a notbale opinion. Why is the person notable? You have no consensus for your changes. Noloop (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? The publisher is the one that has to be reliable, the ref does not have to be written by someone who is "notable". You are confusing WP:N with WP:RS. As it happens I don't have to address anything you say. I just have to supply references that meet WP:RS not ones that meet your approval. Please get over yourself. --WebHamster 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It's an opinion. All statements about anti-Americanism are opinions. Do we cite the opinion of Joe Blow sitting at the bar? Presumably not. If we cite an opinion, the person with the opinion is supposed to be important in some way, i.e. notable.
2. The WP:RS you keep citing is for factual claims. If you cite an opinion, you need to attribute it. If we did that in this article, as it stands, it would be full statements like "According to [random person nobody has heard of] such-and-such mural is anti-American..." Noloop (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}OK, perhaps it will be more productive if we go through Noloop's claims one by one here rather than getting into futile edit warring on the page itself. 1. It is implicit, without any need to interpolate, that the line from [66] about 'Great Satan' is reasonable as I presented it earlier. True it doesn't say anti-American explicitly, but it is set as a direct contrast to 'many Iranians admire the US', so it is clearly couching 'Great Satan' as a pejorative term. I believe it should be easy to get more along these lines, but I believe this is enough as is. If Noloop can provide countering RS's to refute this, please do so, otherwise I think the sentence I offered is balanced as well as sticking close to the source. 2. Let's dump the US Army source until a better one can be found that is unequivocally NPOV - they may be a very RS for other matters, but there is a shadow of doubt in this instance, so let's run with independent sources instead, of which there is currently one - more would be welcome. 3. I am still unhappy with the ad for a photo exhibition as a source, but he FPIP source looks good to me, however, if you can provide reasons to doubt it Noloop, please do so - note that you will have to come up with something better than claiming it is an opinion piece because FPIP are the publishers and have deemed it worth publishing, and they claim to be "more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner". I think we can then use "The anti-American murals that dot the streets of Tehran have been part of a domestic and regional struggle to define the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979" to put together a sentence along the lines of "Numerous anti-American murals dot the streets of Tehran". I believe that should resolve the issues under consideration. Thoughts? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that source a says X so it must also mean that source a means Y see WP:SYNTH or WP:OR The sentence is not balanced as it says that a source makes a claim that is not implicit within the text of that source, it is up to someone inserting a claim to prove that claim, not up to the person contesting it to disprove it. By the way is FPIP noted for its fact checking? What FPIP claims about themsleves may not be true. Who are FPIP are they a respected organisation? It seems to be somekind of offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies. Moreover whilst it may claim that it “more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists” how many of these are indeed scholars? If the majority are advocates (whatever that may actually mean) and activist then this sight might in fact breach “publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature”. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Blippy, you seem to saying that it is a fact that any pejorative directed at any aspect of the US is an example of anti-Americanism. If it's a fact, then we can report as fact that the term "Great Stan" is anti-American. I can't accept that. Statements of anti-Americanism are statements of opinion, not fact. That's doubly true because of the politicized nature of the term, as this article itself points out:

• "the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed."
• "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational"
• "Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American."
• "American academic Noam Chomsky... asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships; he compares the term to "anti-Sovietism", a label used by the Kremlin to suppress dissident or critical thought, for instance"
• "...criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."

Given these aspects of the term, it's unacceptable for an encyclopedia to be telling readers what's anti-American.

2. It's not true all pejoratives directed at the US indicate prejudice or hatred of the US. The term "Axis of evil" has been in use as a reference to Iran for years. Does it indicate US cultural hate toward Iran? An encyclopedia simply can't 1) interpret that, and ii) state its interpretation as fact.

3. It seems simple. We find important people expressing opinions about anti-Americanism, and report the fact they have that opinion. We don't find sources for something we think is "obvious" anti-Americanism, and then report that something as a ffact of anti-Americanism.

4. Also, publisher reliability seems irrelevant for editorials, since publishers don't usually fact-check editorials. The author is understood to be representing only himself. Reliable publishers are full of op-ed pieces by Republicans saying there's no such thing as global warming for example. Those aren't reliable sources for anything. Noloop (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are classed as reliable sources on WP regardless of your own personal opinion, which seems to be the problem here. You are working from your own opinions, not WP rules. Incidentally FPIF is notable enough for its own article so there's a pretty good chance it can be classed as a RS, and so far it's 2:1 for that reference. Your move. And who came up with the strawman synth argument? No-one is synthesising anything. --WebHamster 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the sources are unreliable. You haven't addressed a single thing I've said. Dump the strawman, feigned incomprehension, please. Noloop (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again your obsessive, opinionated pedantry beats common-sense to the punch. With that sort of outlook nothing I say will appease you so I'm not going to bother. And I haven't addressed anything you say because I make it a rule not to respond to total bollocks. --WebHamster 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to have your agreement that you're not responding to my points. In other words, not interested in consensus. So, go edit another article. Noloop (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered where the problem lay. It seems it's your understanding of what consensus means. Consensus does not mean that noloop is right regardless of what else is said. I've read your points, I don't think they have merit, I accordingly ignored them. Listening to what you say and then going along with it is not gaining consensus regardless of what you may believe. I really think you need to look up "consensus" in a dictionary before you involve yourself in any more faux pas. --WebHamster 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it means agreeing. It means not ignoring. You keep admitting you're not interested in consensus. So, you should edit a different article. Noloop (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From Slatersteven's wikilink:

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." [1] Noloop (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs to be taken elsewere now but for the record “'Great Satan' is reasonable as I presented it earlier. True it doesn't say anti-American explicitly, but it is set as a direct contrast to 'many Iranians admire the US', so it is clearly couching 'Great Satan' as a pejorative term.” Is synthasis, if the source does not specifically say it then an editor cannot infer it by the process of A & B are true therefore C must be true. I for one bleive that if the language continues then there should be action taken. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Refining the bit in question

OK, I'm losing the plot here. I'm going to put together a version of what we've got so we can work on it specifically. As far as I can assess, based on the RS's we have, the following seems pretty reasonable;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and numerous murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are.

I'm conscious that the very last bit could be OR and would feel much more comfortable if we had a source to that effect. It's going to get pretty clunky if we need to preface anti-American with 'has been characterised/described as' - but I believe to do so addresses Noloops primary, and valid, concern that *we* are saying X is anti-American rather than saying that RS says X is anti-American. As far as FPIF is concerned I think it is unproductive to argue here about whether they are WP:RS - let's burrow away by ourselves on that point to find evidence either way and bring back RS's that demonstrate their credibility or otherwise. I think we give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, as I'd much rather focus on the couple of sentences above, which we can easily adjust to reflect FPIP status once it's established. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some hunting and it seems Chomsky is regularly quoted or interviewed by FPIF - so I don't think we need to worry that they are pushing an Iranian anti-American (what does that mean again?!?) line. In fact there is something else in this reference that may be worth adding to the passage in question;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and numerous murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, so it's a given that noloop will object. --WebHamster 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

;-) It's been pretty exasperating for you guys, but hopefully Noloop will be satisfied with this too. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no different from what's already there, and addresses none of my objections. No passage should be telling readers what they should think of as an anti-American act. Period. It's a political point-of-view. How did we get from a source that says the murals "dot" the city to a statement that the murals are "numerous"? I didn't say FPIF was unreliable or biased; that's a strawman argument of WebHamster's. I said the source was an opinion piece, so not a source for statements of fact. It doesn't matter how reliable the publisher is. This is like finding an opinion piece in the New York Times saying there is no global warming, and then stating as fact there is no global warming because the NYT is a reliable source. Opinion pieces are sources for nothing except the fact that that author expressed that opinion. That is, in fact, what our policy on references states. Noloop (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dotted about" means there are more than one and infers there are many, at least in the English language anyway. It also means that it's an observation of fact, regardless of whether it's in an opinion piece or not. It's not the author's opinion, it's the author's observation. And please quit with the outright lies. Your edit summary states that consensus had not been reached on whether the FPIF is a reliable source. That to me reads that you don't think it is. So if you no longer have an objection to it being classed as a reliable source I shall put it back at it now appears we have a consensus for its inlusion. --WebHamster 15:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No doted about means there are some, not many (check the dictionary it means "A large or considerable number" or " a quantifier that can be used with count nouns and is often preceded by `as or `too or `so or `that; amounting to a large but indefinite number; "many temptations"; "the temptations are many"; "a good many"; "a great many"; "many directions". So the current text says that there are large number (using the meaning of many) murals, the source does not support this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually "doted" means "loved" if one wishes to level the same sort of pedantry noloop has been using. But if you look above to Blippy's suggested text "many" is not used. "Numerous" and "dotted" is used which is supported by the reference. It is that text which I have been referring to today. Any other English lessons you would like to hand out to this Northerner? --WebHamster 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of numerous 1. [adj] - amounting to a large indefinite number. The source makes no such claim. Source 74 states that they are less numerous then those depicting the Iran Iraq war, but does not say how many there are. Neither does source 75.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just one definition of numerous. Numerous can be used to describe any multiple number without being definite about the specific number, i.e. it's an arbitrary term about an arbitrary number. "Numerous" and "dotted about" are not mutually exclusive. --WebHamster 16:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the dictionary definition, it carries a clear impresion of a large number, not a few dotted about. thus cl;ealry loads the line towards a given POV (that there are large number of Murals). A neutral POV phrase might be "murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]." Why is this so unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

It's just one dictionary definition, one used because that one that suits your argument. But regardless I don't have any objection to losing the numerous/many/gajillions/fucking loads of 'em/one or two mate... etc And your wording isn't unacceptable, I wouldn't argue against its inclusion. What made you think I thought it was unacceptable? No-one had yet come up with that wording so please stop jumping to conclusions. --WebHamster 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I would sugest you provide the other meanings that I have failed to find in at least 5 dictionaries. I would also sugest that you refrain from accustaions of cheery picking, and to refrain from swearing it is not constructive and may give offense. The new source would seem to me to make it rather clear that ‘great Satan; is not a specifically anti-American tern, it is applied to enemies of the Islamic republic regardless of their ‘Americanism’. Again this new source does not say how many murals, it certainly does not say there are many of them. So as now have now agreed on this new wording can we have a agrement on this at leart from Noloop?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User WebHamster has now demonstrated that he does object to the line that I proposed, and had made edits and changes that he claim wer agrred to but never were.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your previous pedantry about definitions I'm surprised that you are confused with the term "objects". I didn't object to your version, I don't object to it now. I just think my version is better. It covers all the points and meets that which is written in the refs. I also didn't say my text was agreed upon. I said wit was reworded per the discussion, ie the points raised, eg removal of many/numerous, the use of dotted. The only addition I made was the state-sponsored bit which is covered in the refs. Now are you going to keep lying and distorting the facts? --WebHamster 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as the addition of all over the city, which im not backed up by the sources, in fact one source makes it cleer that they only occupy the main roads. Moreover you admit that you made additions that were not discused.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Start

WebHamster was blocked for 5 days, and SlaterSteven for 1.

Let's start with the most basic question: Is saying something is anti-American a political point of view? Noloop (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is only my own imperfect POV, however I think that it's a little too specific to call it only a political point of view. It can be considered as such in certain circumstances (ie prominient politician speaks out against anti-American attitudes in the middle east); saying something is anti-American can also obviously exist as a non-political viewpoint (ie in an academic sense). Anyway, that's my interpretation at least. Iciac (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate outcome. I thought we were making progress here. Saying something is anti-American may well be a political statement, but is *definitely* not a political statement to say that a RS says something is anti-American, especially when we are also raising the issues around the political nature of describing something as anti-American. So getting back to the sentence;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

Can we have some specific, detailed feedback on any concerns with this? As far as I can tell it sticks very closely to sources and does not call anything anti-American, and dropping the disputed (needlessly in my view) word 'numerous' leaves us with a pretty coherent, accurate passage. Responding to Noloop's comments; "No passage should be telling readers what they should think of as an anti-American act. Period." This passage does not do that. It says that other RS's have characterised the murals as anti-American. It does not state 'Great Satan' is anti-American, and it balances the position by explaining the use of anti-Americanism within Iran as being more for domestic purposes than anything else. So it makes no political statement, and I believe is very NPOV. "The source [is] an opinion piece, so not a source for statements of fact." The piece is used to convey the fact that there are murals which have been described as anti-American. Noloop has argued all along that this is an opinion, so it is very apt to cite an opinion that demonstrates that characterisation. NOTE: we are not saying that it is a fact that the murals are anti-American, we are saying it is a fact that they have been *described* as anti-American - as has been done in the opinion piece. FPIF is not in dispute as a RS, so that bit doesn't matter. Any other concerns? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to explicitly say something is anti-American in order to run into POV problems, although this article does a lot of explicit saying. Listing all these polls and various slogans, in the article "Anti-Americanism," is an obvious suggestion that these things are examples of anti-Americanism. Otherwise why mention them? Are we suggesting they're examples of Fruit Loops? Mentioning that an importnat or prominent source has expressed the opinion that something is anti-American is the right way to do it, but this article rarely does that. It's important to specify the source, and not use passive voice. Also, doesn't it seem odd that the Iranian side is nowhere mentioned? Noloop (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns with the passage under consideration at the moment Noloop? We can tackle the rest of the article later, but let's get this bit sorted out first, ok? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the passage as sugested works (but perhaps wew should also include the line about state sponserhsip, thus there will be no need for webmaster to revert becasue of the lack of a a referanceed line). But Noloops concearns about this page ingeneral (and this passage in particular) are valid. This page is about anti-Americanism, and so should only be about what a RS considers to be that, not what an editor does which seems to be the case at the momnent. Now the murals are are called are called anti-American or anti-USA (pretty much the same thing).Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a YES from you Slatersteven, yes? I'm not quite sure what you mean about the state sponsorship line - can you add it in to the passage here so we can see how it looks? I realise Noloop has numerous concerns, but ultimately we will have to tackle them one by one, so I'd suggest we stick with this one till we get it right and then work from there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been stating my explicit concerns with the passage in question ever day for the last month. Noloop (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a very helpful response Noloop. Please have a look at the following passage and share the *specific* amendments you think are needed, if any. None of us has a magic wand to fix the entire article to your liking in one hit, we're going to have to tackle it one piece at a time - or at least that's what I'm attempting to do. I have come here as a neutral editor, so if you're unwilling to work with me, then I don't hold much hope for your broader complaints getting resolved to your satisfaction. Of the 4 editors commenting on this passage you are the only one yet to voice specific examples of how to modify it.

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and state sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]" is what I meant by a li9ne refering to the (alledged) state sponserhip of the murals. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If what I've said every day for the last month isn't very helpful, then I'm not sure what to say. The problem with the passage is that it doesn't identify anybody making an important allegation of anti-Americanism. The sources either don't mention anti-Americanism at all, or they do so in passing. When the sources do mention AA, we report that in passive voice, not identifying them. Characterized by whom? Suggested by whom? By one reporter nobody has heard of? By an expert on the Middle East? A graduate student talking about her photo exhibit? Dick Cheney? We have no idea whether AA is considered a reasonable, non-biased way of describing Iran among scholars, but the passage suggests otherwise. Delete the whole thing. Noloop (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The section that we are dealing with is: "Contemporary Regional Attitudes", subsection "Middle East". Presumably a reader is going to expect to find material from RS's which reflect contemporary Middle Eastern attitudes about anti-Americanism. Please suggest an alternative introduction to this section Noloop so we can better see what you mean. If you have already said all this during the last month I apologise, but I have neither the time or energy to go hunting for it. I would appreciate you offering a version that you would find acceptable so that we can move this thing forward now. Let's take this as an opportunity to prepare a draft that would allow us to "delete the whole thing". Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which sources in this section actually mention anti-Americanism? As far as I can tell, virtually none of them. So what are they doing in the article? The section is junk. Noloop (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which bit of your reply is your version of what should replace it? I am already entertaining your suggestion to delete it all Noloop, now it's your turn to offer what we replace it with - otherwise it will simply stay there as is. I understand you don't like what's there, now please share what you think should be there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You were invited as a Third Opinion because of WebHamster's trolling, which has now been (at least temporarily) ended. Maybe you are no longer needed here. Aside from not paying attention to anything I say--as you seem to freely admit--what do you try to accomplish as a Third Opinion? I have edited the section to leave the one clear, developed attribution of anti-Americanism from a clearly prominent source. Noloop (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my efforts at providing a neutral perspective have not met with your approval. I think you are being quite unreasonable now and I am starting to understand, and experience firsthand, some of the frustration you appear to have generated prior to my arrival. You are not operating in a collaborative manner, and are effectively spitting in the eye of someone who came here with an open mind to lend a helping hand. Alienating editors is not an effective way of convincing people you are right, neither is ignoring their attempts to understand what you are trying to say in order to better work with you. All you end up doing is demonstrating to any other neutral party that you are unreasonable. Good luck and I hope you can start to see how unproductive your current approach is. Cheerio, Blippy (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please go away. Intentionally or not, you are acting like a troll. Your Third Opinion is no longer needed. A Third Opinion is for resolving a dispute between two editors, not to become a disputant and revert edits yourself. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may step in, Noloop I would advise you to calm down. Blippy was just trying to stay cool headed, while you accused him of trolling. Also, most likely unintentional, you have been avoiding the answer. Blippy has said that would be helpful if you could show him where a specific comment is at, as most of your answers have been unhelpful to answering that.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't now how I can get more specific than actually making the edits I specifically propose. I said Bippy is acting like a troll because he is. A Third Opinion shouldn't be making personal remarks, shouldn't be reverting edits, and generally shouldn't become an active editor when he's supposed to be neutral. Far from being neutral, he's acting like WebHamster's attorney. He reverted my "bold edit," (which would be fine from an involved editor), but reverted to WebHamster's edit-war version. I don't know what the second part of your comment is asking--I think there are some typos or skipped words. I've made my position clear, over and over and over again, and I'm sick and tired of people complaining I haven't been clear and then, when I repeat the points, complaining I'm repeating myself. This was a standard WebHamster trick, Blippy is coming darn close to it, and I'm fed up with it. My specific proposals (I've said this 20 times): Sources that don't mention anti-Americanism aren't legitimate. Sources that are opinion pieces aren't legitimate as factual references. Sources that are opinion pieces by non-notable people, like a student discussing her pictures, aren't legitimate. Sources that only mention anti-Americanism in passing should be used sparingly. The material I removed was removed for these reasons, which I've explained 20 times before with no reasoned reply from anyone. Noloop (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who started it or whatnot. This is getting ridiculous. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about Great Satan is one example that has been pointed out. It has been applied to both Britain and the US and as such is not a specifically Anti-American phrase. As such (and as you most editors seem to admit its not) then it should not be in an article that is about Anti-Americanism otherwise it can be seen as trying to draw the inference that the phrase is Anti-American without actually saying so (because non of the sources back the claim). So until better sources are found perhaps this will meet with all users agreement. How about?

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and state sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. As well as other phrases often represented as anti-American, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"

I would also have to suggest that editors calm down and explain what they object to, and offer constructive alternatives.

I've probably stated my objections to that passage 50 times on this Talk page. Noloop (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reset to before July and then work from there?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We are starting over. And don't bring any accusations or other crud over here. I mean that to everyone involved here. Just calm down and discuss things calmly. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] As well as other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF], however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

That’s two more references.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So I take it then that if there are no objections then an admin can replace the current text with this tomorrow?Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. It would be helpful if those who are supposed to aid in dispute resolution: 1) Remained neutral, rather than becoming active editors of the article 2) Spent more than 3 seconds researching matters, rather than leaping to judgements. I don't know why Abce2 has suddenly shown up at this article. He/she was initially part of my attempt at dispute resolution with WebHamster, as was Blippy. Suddenly, both have started reverting edits and making pesonal remarks, without no appparent knowledge of the recent discussion or edits. There was no edit warring after WebHamster was blocked. I made one revert of a part of Blippy's revert that I thought was accidental. Blippy made a revert of a "bold edit", as he/she is entitled. Abce2 then made the most unconstructive revert, apparently not really noticing the history, and then requested the page be protected... That's it...and now the page is protected for two weeks. Noloop (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a he. Otherwise, no comment. I have other things to do.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to justify your actions here, why are you still here? Noloop (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stay focused. I meant I don't have time to get off-topic.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats it all about Americi

This page is about (I thought) what is percived (by those who use the phrase) to be Aniti-Americanism. Therefore that is what the page should contain, what those who uswe the phrase defiine as anti-americanism, but that is all it should include. Not things tyhat an editor thinks are anti-americaism. So somnething should only be included (and it should make it clear who) if it is defined by the source as an example. There should however also be caveated of somekind to make it clear that this is an opinion not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think your additions are good, and I've added in Noloop's point about Great Satan, so we now have;

'Death to America'[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[69] along with other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF][10][11], however, many Iranians admire the US[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors,[FPIF] and even the phrase 'Great Satan' which has previously been associated with anti-Americanism[ref here] appears to now signify either the US and/or the UK.[ref for this?]

How does that look? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I would go as far to say that we should insert his and look for the refs (using Citation needed tags) later.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It violates policies on neutral point-of-view, accurate representation of sources, and balanced weight. It uses weasel words. I have explained the exact way it does this 20 or 30 times. Blippy, if you have no interest in this article (as you said), and the dispute that initiated your Third Opinion has been resolved in another way, why are you still here? Noloop (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see the line about death to America is hardley POV (its difficlut to see it as anything but Anti-American), but poerhaps we should put in a citation needed tag in order top achive conesnsus. The line about murals is sourced and not POV, and makes it clear that these are charactrised as anti-American (which is all that is required, this is about what people percive as anti-american not what is). The only issue therefore is to my mind) Great Satan, and as long as we put in citation needed tags, and agree to remove that term should none be forthcomming then I see no problom. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for this article to call anything anti-American. If it is "obviously" anti-American, then (by definition of "obvious") it should be easy to find a notable source expressing that opinion. The line about murals is not sourced in the right way. The passage uses weasel words (passive voice) to hide the fact that the people expressing this opinion are non-scholars and non-notable: in short, not valid. Phrasing like this is POV: "it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are". Noloop (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be notable, they have to meet RS. OK try this http://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcjspbPRwC&pg=PA276&dq=the+anti+american+phrase+death+to+america it states that the phrase “death to America” was shouted during anti-US rallies it also says that Great Satan is an anti-US term, now have a source for that. We also have this http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/may/seventh_majles_28504.shtml odd for someone to respond to a call for anti-American slogans with one that isn’t. http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0210/iran.html has this to say “Three decades later the oft-chanted slogan 'Death to America' remains relevant, especially since the ascent to the presidency in 2005 of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a vocal advocate of anti-Americanism.” Again this clearly (not indirectly) links the phrase to anti-Americanism. As does this http://books.google.com/books?id=NboVl-CeYs0C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=anti+american+slogans+%2B+iran+%2B+%E2%80%9Cdeath+to+America%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=J3-YxpYYUr&sig=jMFZo1kQgoiuV-ZhSRy15KWUSHM&hl=en&ei=P6BsSv-DD9OMjAfEk_ieCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4. So whilst we have no sources that say it is anti-American we have sources that say it is often used in circumstances of anti-Americanism. Now there is an element of Synthesis to this. This one however is rather more explicate http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html “The Islamic Republic of Iran’s anti-zionist and anti-american approach is not a new thing. The “death to America” and “death to Israel” slogans exist since the first days of the revolution.” Makes it rather plain that it is an anti-American phrase. We also have this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/02/usa.iran says “Cries of "marg bar Amrika" (death to America) no longer fill the air, but in the shadow of the Den of Spies - formerly known as the US embassy - echoes of an equally atavistic anti-Americanism still resonate.” Well that makes it clear its an anti-American phrase.

Now as to poorly written sources, it might be helpful of you were to show us how they should be written. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sources of OPINION have to be notable: they have to be experts or prominent in some way. We don't cite the opinions of Joe Blow With a Blog. Why? Because Joe Blow With a Blog isn't notable. A graduate student making a passing comment while describing her pictures is no different from Joe Blow With a Blog. Citing the opinion of a staff reporter for the Associated Press isn't much different. Statements about anti-Americanism are statements of opinion, not fact.
• Since they are opinions, not facts, we put those opinions in articles with clear attribution. Example: "According to Paul Hollander, blah blah is anti-American.[1]" We don't say: "Blah blah is anti-American [1]" where [1] is a Hollander ref. We also don't say "Blah blah has been characterized as anti-American. [1]"--those are weasel words. Noloop (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy says about sourcing:

• News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text.
• Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact....When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
• The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979 ref http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html </ref>[69] As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF], however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

In this version the sources for Murals come from news paper articles, not opinion pieces, I have also added a new one As the rules say an opinion piece is separate from an article, these are articles not opinion pieces. For death to America I have now put in place two sources, one at least (I am not sure about the Turkish source) is a high end UK newspaper. Great Satan comes from a book, not a newspaper or a blog. As to your second point perhaps you should have quoted it in full for the missing section says “A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers.” The sources I have given above do not fall into this catargery, they are actual articles not editorials repoprting on evetns in Terahn. Also please do not shout. As to your third point, that has been addressed by the fact that my sources are not opinion pieces from blogs or students talking about their holiday. Reporters filing reports are RS, as the line above makes clear its really only considered opinion if it’s a editorial piece, it is your opinion that they are opinion pieces. I have left the last part in to enable other eds to find better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's getting hard to check this stuff, because the refs don't work as links. It looks like some of the refs are just lists of search hits, which isn't a source. It may not even be the same list in a month.
• Wikipedia cannot go around calling people anti-American. It's just not appropriate. So this is a problem: "As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies"
• I have no idea what your "shouting" comment is about. If you mean the bold, that is in the original source.
• It is not just my opinion that anti-Americanism is an opinion. This article itself says so--it is an often incoherent opinion, sometimes propaganda, according to this article. Have you read this article? Noloop (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979

http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/02/usa.iran

[69] As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies http://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcjspbPRwC&pg=PA276&dq=the+anti+american+phrase+death+to+america . State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/12/2541133.htm

ttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/03/usatcov-iranchanges.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1910361,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/01/22/iran.politics.people/

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/25/iranian_citizens_yearning_for_us_to_start_a_dialogue/

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/2837ca86dfedeaa1dcddf213d48c6e25/mps/AMERICAN-EMBASSY-IN-TEHRAN-FOR-SALE/

, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

Try this book http://books.google.com/books?id=WL-IYCCe58EC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=anti+american+slogans+%2B+iran+%2B+death&source=bl&ots=zmrfCPK38n&sig=dH5fMDLoMwPal93nrHeTYVu9l40&hl=en&ei=Kw1vSo7iAtefjAev68GQBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 pretty unequivocal that. Now you are correct this page is about what people perceive as Anti-American (as I said above). As such there is no need for every claim and sentence to have this mentioned its mentioned in the lead (perhaps not forcefully enough). It is up to the reader to determine if the claim that something (that a source) claimed to be Anti-American is true or not, it is not for us to determine that, this article is about a claim, not a fact. As I said more counter arguments are needed, so insert them. That is why the line that said “phrases often represented as anti-American” was there to make it clear that all of these sources are only stating what they believe to be true but something that is not an empirical fact. Now if you want the line to read

“State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF] according to ABC Austrailia, USAtoday, Time magazine, CNN, Boston Globe and UPI“ lets go for it but it looks a little bloated top me. This is not one persons or one organisations opinion. Shall I find more or leave it at that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you asking? The sources you list, that I checked, just aren't very relevant. A list of google search hits isn't a source. In some cases, the sources don't support the text. The link for anti-American murals is about a single mural--and its removal [2]. Those articles that do express an opinion about anti-Americanism need to be directly attributed. That is part of the policy on citing opinions. Most of them mention "anti-American" in passing, as an adjective used once or twice in an article not focussed on anti-Americanism as a topic. The photo of the embassy for sale just mentions "anti-American" in the caption--you don't even know who the author is. It looks like you did some quick googling, and now want to turn the results into sources without actually reading the sources carefully. Finding important, relevant sources entails more than just googling keywords. Noloop (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well did you want me to frind more sources, well I have (see below). A list of google search hits is not there. Which sources do not support the text? The Link? There are 6 links for anti-American murals not one. Nor do these sources breach RS as they are not opinion peaces but news articles. This is not part of wikipedias policies (as your attempt to get it made so on makes clear), a clear expression you accept that its not against the rules to use sources such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=304353764&oldid=303690977 the last replyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=304795453&oldid=304695782 seems to imply your premise was wrong . Nor does the fact that mention them in passing preclude them for use under Wiki’s rules. Nor is googling precluded from use by Wiki, as long as the sources you find do not breach RS these do not, some may be open to question but then lets do you a favour and provide those few more I promised.

A book http://books.google.com/books?id=3SapTk5iGDkC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=anti+american+murals+%2B+tehran&source=bl&ots=8rXLf5Og6p&sig=129nW7LNp6GmYJwVa_PJoUC3sRs&hl=en&ei=fEFwSv_WCt6hjAfm4PCiBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6 lets have another newspaper article as well http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393411-details/Iran:+A+nation+of+nose+jobs,+not+nuclear+war/article.do Lets have another shall we http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/08/world/old-animosities-aside-americans-are-touring-iran.html another book http://books.google.com/books?id=IKRq123CSlIC&pg=PR9&dq=anti+americanism++%2B+iran+%2B+murals and one last book http://books.google.com/books?id=yqJIlo6dQ0MC&pg=PA9&dq=anti+americanism++%2B+iran+%2B+murals Yes I googled these, but this does not invalidate then. So we now have news paper articles and book saying the same thing, that there are anti-American murals in Tehran.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for more sources, I asked for better sources. Sources that are actually about anti-Americanism, instead of mentioning it briefly in passing. Sources expressing opinions about anti-Americanism that come from prominent, scholarly, or somehow notable people. Not people nobody has heard of, or staff reporters for AP not following the same POV guidelines as Wikipedia.

Anti-Americanism is an opinion, so all our statements about it need to follow the guidelines for opinions. We don't use weasel words (passive voice). We directly state "So-and-so says XYZ is anti-American" where So-and-so is someone who matters.

I didn't say googling is invalid. I said a list of google search hits is not a source. Noloop (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AP was not my only sources and the other sources are not opinion pieces but news reports about Tehran. Nor is there a requirement for sources top be from “prominent, scholarly, or somehow notable people”, nor is there a preclusion on using sources written by people that “people nobody has heard of”. So I would request that you please stop objecting to theses sources based upon rules that do not exist.

Yes anti-Americanism is an opinion, but expressions of Anti-Americanism may not be if a reliable source (one that does not breach wikipedias rules) says X has stated Y is anti-American then is a sourced fact, not an opinion, unless you can find a source from y saying that it is not anti-American. Can you find a source that says these murals are not anti-American, if not then the people that drew them do not contend that they are not anti-American, only you do. We only say its opinion if its an opinion piece in a newspaper, not a book.

I did not provide a list of google hits as a source.

I agree with S here. Anti-Americanism is an opinion, but like racism it is phenomenon that can be reported on in Wikipedia. RS's that state that something is anti-American can be cited here as evidence that the thing they refer to is considered anti-American. So if an article in a RS describes X as anti-American, regardless of who the author is, regardless of whether it's an opinion piece, then the FACT that they have said X is anti-American is evidence that can be used in WP that X is considered anti-American - even if it is only that author who holds that opinion. We don't need notable authors, we need RS's. So how about some productive drafting now? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. The position you describe is an attempt to rationalize away the provision against "weasel words." The position you're describing, in which you neither have to find expert commentators nor directly attribute the quote, would result in Wikipedia saying things like "The Holocaust is considered to have never happened." Why don't you actually read the article???? The article itself makes it very clear that this is not a coherent "phenomenon that can be reported on in Wikipedia":

• "the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed."
• "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational"
• "Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American."
• "American academic Noam Chomsky... asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships; he compares the term to "anti-Sovietism", a label used by the Kremlin to suppress dissident or critical thought, for instance"
• "...criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."

This is the exact opposite of a clearly defined "phenomenon that can be reported on" in an encyclopedic fashion. We can only report what people have said, and that has to be done with an eye toward the propaganda elements described above, an eye toward due weight, and an eye toward whether the opinions we're reporting are significant. Noloop (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it state that statements that call something anti-American are automatically suspect of bias. Nor are all the sources I have provided American, as such the claim that it is used by America to criticise its opponents not valid. There is no rule on Wikipedia requiring expert sources, just reliable ones, I would again ask you to please stop trying to enforce rules that do not exist. Nor have I used any direct quotes (please stop trying to use rules that are not applicable). Whilst the use of the term is disputed that does not mean that a given fact (not opinion pieces but with book or newspaper article source) is untrue (unless you can find a source to say its contested). Wikipedias rules do not require atriputation of sources when dealing with RS (which the sources I have provided are). No weasel words are being used.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say we suspect them of bias: that would also be POV. I said statements about anti-Americanism are opinions. They are highly political opinions, very prone to cultural bias. How many Iranians are editing this article's characterization of Iranians? Attribution is required when citing opinions. My concerns are with how we are presenting opinion, not whether the sources are reliable. Wording like "...is considered anti-American by some" is a textbook example of weasel wording. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, you are confusing FRINGE with RS. Extreme fringe views need not be reported, hence there being a possible case for not including RS's saying the Holocaust didn't happen in the Holocaust article. But if the view has some following, and RS coverage, then it should be included: hence the Holocaust Denial page. It may be inappropriate to talk about anti-Americanism in the way you're describing on, say, the Iranian page, but on the page setup explicitly to discuss the matter it is completely appropriate. Attributions always have to be made in a reference, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. But the only restriction is on the source being a reliable one. We don't have to filter out anything beyond that level. Your example of "...is considered anti-American by some" is fine if it is backed by the appropriate references, although the weasel element can be avoided completely by wording it "...has been described as anti-American." So how about we stop theorising about the whole thing and get down to some editing of the actual text? From memory we now have one passage that has obtained consensus, yes? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand anything I say. I haven't said anything is a fringe theory. Fringe theories, usually, are about factual matters--whether something really happened, whether the Earth is flat, etc. I'm talking about opinion, not factual matters, as I've said oh about 50 times now. Please review the guidelines for weasel words and attributing opinions. You example "...has been described as anti-American." is equally weaselly. You have to say "So-and-so has described such-and-such as anti-American" to comply with guidelines on attributing opinions and avoiding weasel words. Noloop (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. It's perfectly okay to say "Some people have decided that A is B", then stick the reference after the prose. This reference is then there to show who the "some people" are. It's up to the reader to decide on whether they want to follow it up. It is not necessary to add to the prose the names of the "some people". You really should try to understand the rules before you attempt to lecture others. --WebHamster 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Maybe you don't understand what you say either :-) You brought in Holocaust denial as an example of non-expert opinion being excluded from the Holocaust page. This is not the case. Holocaust denial is excluded because of its fringe theory status, not because it is a non-expert opinion. What we need to do here is collect RS's that make statements relevant to anti-Americanism. If a RS publishes an opinion piece that claims Tehran is dotted with anti-American murals then we can use it to state that numerous murals scattered around Tehran have been described as anti-American. That is the fact we report, that there are several mural around Tehran which someone published in a RS believes to be anti-American. No weasel wording, just stating the fact. If the view is a common one, then it should be quite simple to find numerous examples that we can cite. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the sources provided are not opinion pieces, they are newspaper reports as well as a few books. I have found a large number of sources repeating the statement. No source has been offered challenging the fact, as such it can be said that not only do those making then statement think that the murals are anti-American but so do those who are responsible for them. Moreover the paragraph did indeed say that these were state sponsored (removed because the source was deemed unreliable by Noloop) and that they may not in fact represent the views of the Iranian people (again from a source that noloop claim is a POV piece).Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's start putting the rest of the section together utilising these sources in accordance with WP policy. cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'Death to America'[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[69] along with other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF] , however, many Iranians admire the US[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors,[FPIF] and even the phrase 'Great Satan' which has previously been associated with anti-Americanism appears to now signify either the US and/or the UK.[ref for this?]

Thus we have one non American news paper for death to America and one book, 2 books for murals and one book for great Satan.(updated)Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

past debates

I've been gone, so where is this conversation now? I think I missed something.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No I just missed out a source (the above passage would have to be copied from edit view to work in the article). At the moment (as far as I can see) this parqagraph is not more or less usable (formating asside).Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant did something happen while I was gone?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a spat about sockpupets. As well as the useral objections based on no real grounds.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Noloop accusing us of being trolls as I've read, correct?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I only thought he called Blippy a troll, but I may have missed something.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait that was on the talk for reliable sources. This is very similar to another user I've seen. Strange.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would start a new subject as the above one is getting a bit daft. Noloop has called Blippy a troll and sockpuppet here, and me and you a troll elsewere. Apart from that things have been prety much as they were. As to similarities to other users I cannot comment on that with out knowing to whome the troll tolls.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking to myself. But where getting off topic, aren't we?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm not a sockpuppet of everyone. I've already been that.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's getting pretty apparent that noloop's MO is to call anyone who disagrees with him a troll. Oh and of course anyone else who stands in his way of his agenda to deny that there is actually no such thing as anti-Americanism. After all the North Americas are such a perfect entity! --WebHamster 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree to the first part. It's strange how often this kind of thing is starting to happen.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's strange how much trolling is starting to happen on this article. For example, this entire section. Noloop (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

'whacks forehead' you don't get it do you? Letting me show you someone who kept accusing people, like you have. User talk:Frei Hans.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its now time to take this elsewere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But where are you talking about?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

the (or a ) users talk page, as we are now clearly discusing Noloop and not just the edit history.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whose?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)