Talk:Anti-Europeanism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US-centric[edit]

This is kind of US-centric but I don't know how to fix it. Hostility by people in EU countries towards the EU is a kind of anti-Europeanism in this sense, right?A Geek Tragedy 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty bad but I can't think of a quick way to edit without weasel words. I suppose Don Rumsfeld is perceived as anti-European, maybe because of his old Europe comments, but by whom? Maybe Rummy's pic and the comment should be removed altogether. --209.128.81.201 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective[edit]

Hi Christanem- can you please provide references or perspective for some of your edits, especially:

-The implication that The United States of America is a "fading empire?"

-The implication that both the United States and Iran are "regimes?"

-The argument for the refusal to allow American troops to commit war crimes?

This article is pretty bad and I'm not super happy with my own edits, but there seems to be little attention in the talk pages. Maybe you and I can start. I saw that you opened this article up. Thanks! --209.128.81.201 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Europe is critized for respecting human rights too much": Europe is critized for thinking that "illegal enemy combatants" should have human rights, censorship of cartoons is intolerable, etc.
"Refusal to sign treaties that allow U.S. troops to commit war crimes": that was a major transatlantic issue, with harsh criticism from U.S. See [1]--Christinam 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Christanem; I'm comfortable with some changes- but I still think that your wording is still pretty POV against the U.S. Is it possible to reword to reflect a more NPOV tone, and direct some of your concerns to the specificities of the U.S. administration, and not necessarily the people of the U.S.? I'm sorry but I don't think the comments that "shoot-first-then-ask" are strictly Encyclopedic. I think maybe better would be "preemption" or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.128.81.201 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Um, how the article can have negative tone of other geographical entities when it's about the negative attitudes against Europe? See Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Canadianism, Anti-Chinesenism, etc. - an Encyclopedic article is about discussing the range of opinions/phenomenons/etc. (in this case, against Europe) that are held.--Christinam 11:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Christinam; I think we can get something that's closer to NPOV. You might think that I've framed all of my wording as pro-anti-European or even pro-American/US, but likewise I think you've framed some of your wording as anti-American. Thanks for the reference. As for other "Anti's," I question some of their wording as encyclopedic as well. Cheers, --M a s 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- the remark "radical Christianists like Pat Robertson" feels highly offensive/provocative as a Christian... Do we truly need to label people "Radical"? Can't everyone just insult one another directly? --Azaza767 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not offensive/provocative to express that Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laden represent rather radical forms of their religions.--Christinam 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "anti-Europeanism" logically entail criticising some aspect of Europe which is NOT criticised when met with elsewhere? The things which Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden dislike about Europe are things which they dislike always and everywhere in principle. That, surely, does not constitute "anti-Europeanism"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz99zz (talk • contribs) 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Euroscepticism[edit]

Isn't this article identical with Euroscepticism? --Michkalas 20:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to be improved, in reference to the above point, anti-Europeanism is certainly not Euroscepticism. Euroscepticism is an unfavourable attitude towards European integration by citizens of European countries. Anti-Europeanism is a general unfavourable attitude towards Europeans in General. UKIP would be classed as Eurosceptic, Bill O'Reilly as anti-European. blankfrackis 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some content to the page to get us started, I think if anyone is wishing to develop this page further (and I've only added two sections so it's needed) it should be along similar lines to the anti-Americanism page as the two terms are similar. blankfrackis 15:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed examples[edit]

One could of course expand this article to include various historical and contemporary instances of anti-Europeanism, specifically against those of European ethnicity. For instance, the slave raids by Africans against European coastal towns, the Asian invasions, the exponentially higher African-American crime levels directed against European-Americans. I realise though that might violate Wikipedia's political correctness.

194.46.183.72 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't examples. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Only 8% of crimes are interracial and black on white and white on black crimes are extremely close. The slave raids are were not racially motivated and the rest of what you mention is original research. Remember to be civil and avoid personal attacks.You very nice place 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

"This, according to proponents of the argument, is particularly relevant given the questionable empirical basis of many of the accusations.[4]" What exactly does this mean? It seems overly confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.106 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks valid credentials[edit]

One article by a Reuters correspondent on the subject does not make this a real phenomenon. There do not seem to have any academically worthy credentials here at all!

Can anyone explain why there is a link to an article about socialised medicine? Or the development of the post WWII welfare states across Europe? Neither of those articles talks about anti-Europeanism, but they do contain opinions about the value of the direction that many European states have taken on some issues. Genuine opinions they may be, but I do not think that they even come close to a notion of "Anti-Europeanism" worthy of an article in any encylopedia. --Tom 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A funny thing[edit]

It is really interesting how the US citizens, from which most are Europeans, can be against Europeans.... in this case they should hate themselves!--194.158.42.214 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please remember this in the future - discussion pages are only for debating improvements or changes to the article. 85.82.195.131 15:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then would it be better to change the name of the discussion page? Doomsday28 00:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion page is supposed to be about working on the article, not to post your own opinions on other people. And about your comment, anti-Europeanism is usually referred to people living in European citizens, history, culture and how they act. Americans would hate them because of how some group of Europeans act intolerant towards them, insulting their country or people, which would make Americans feel anti-European because of this. Also, not all of anti-Europeanism comes from the US. It comes from many parts of the world, with Africans having a hatred for Europeans for what they did to their continent, Asians for feeling a national pride, and how they act imperialistic, Middle-Easterners for thinking they're a lot like the US and Israel, etc. (Cluker (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Should this article be deleted?[edit]

I commented here a few days ago that there was little evidence for any real phenomena known as "Anti-Europeanism".

I am inclined to proposed this article be deleted. Before I do so, I want to open up the possibility here to allow the idea to be discussed first before progressing to that stage.

There is one simple reason for this proposal. There is no phenomenon that can be labelled as "Anti-Europeanism". And here is why.

1. The article seems to reflect the anger within the US administration with France in 2003 for their failure in the UN Security Council to back US policy for military action against Iraq. I do not recall that anger being directed against all the other European countries (e.g. UK, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain etc.), some of which actually supported the invasion. So are/were there feelings against Europe as a whole? I think not. Yes, the anger at France spilled over into adminstration friendly news media such as Fox and with those people with strong sympathies towards the proposed action, but this was a brief, and some might argue (as I would) a wholly manufactured issue that was not a real phenomenon in the truest sense.
2. I see no evidence that US citizens are Anti-European because the US and most European states have different models of healthcare.
3. The European states are very diverse and most people know this and therefore know it would be silly to be anti-European because it couldn't be pinned down to any one thing where Europe could treated as having a single attribute that could be the basis for such a thing. In this sense it seems to me that the article has been created to counter "anti-Americanism". This is evident by looking at the wikipedia contributions of the inital author of the article and a major subsequent contributor to it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christinam.
4. There is no evidence for anti-Europeanism outside of the US. I deleted a reference to Arab anti-Europeanism in this Talk page because it seems that the author was not a genuine wikipedian and the account that he was using has been blocked from further edits. In retrospect, that may have been wrong for me to do so. But it does seem that the author was not prepared to cite references to back his/her claims.
5. The original article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Europeanism&oldid=45877132 had bizzare claims for Anti-Europeanism such criticisms of speaking languages other than English language and the wholly understandable European (sic) refusal to sign various international treaties, including treaties allowing American troops to commit war crimes without Geneva Conventions charges ! Fortunately these seem to have been removed in the current article, but if the original article had no proper foundation, does the current version? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I do not think the article should be deleted. Your view that anti-Europeanism does not exist is clearly an opinion with no clear foundation. The Economist for example seems to recognise that the anti-Europeanism exists (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9084422). Type anti-Europeanism in google and you will get 30 000 hits. I live in the US and have experienced anti-Europeanism first hand, being told that Europe is communist for example. There are countless examples of anti-Europeanism. I suggest we leave the article in place and let it be improved over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.159.122 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search on "fairies" and it produced over 8 million hits, and I don't quite think that really means that fairies exist! But seriously. I did make a fairly exhaustive trawl through a wide range of theose Google hits (the anti-european ones) and I think I can fairly say that they fell into 3 camps. The biggest is those discussing Anti-Europeanism as a backlash against perceived Anti-Americanism (which in practise means those selected European countries that did not back the US in Iraq). Most often this is seen in a journalistic and political comment, but I didn't see any statistics showing how deeply this was felt in the public at large. The second biggest group (and much smaller than the first) is the Anti-Europeanism felt in Europe (in countries such as UK and Denmark, that are broadly Eurosceptial (i.e. not in favour of the political integration in the European Union), and by far the smallest number were those that were arguing that the increasing number of muslims in Europe was somehow weakening the European spirit and that this represented a threat (mostly perecived by the US, but also by some in Europe). This latter group was much smaller than the other two by quite a margin. As for references to European men being gay/effeminate, that "European" meaning "communist", "not speaking English" and other bizzare associations, I could find little justification for them being in the article. So in a nutshell, Daniel, I will agree that we should keep the article and just trim it of its excesses. The introduction is quite neat and fair already as it stands today. It just seems to go over the top in the later passages. --Tom 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds crazy Hauskalainen, but there are people who are very anti-European, you can't just bury your head in the sand. I don't doubt the existence of anti-Americans like yourself.;) Travis Cleveland 04:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references to certain assertions not backed up by worthy citations despite a clear request for citation which has been deleted. See discussion on my talk page.--Tom 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sincere suggestion for you that I think will help benefit both th earticle and any who come along to read the notes referencing how the article developed. If your position is that "Anti-Europeanism" doesn't exist, for example, then try to prove that it does and see where. if anywhere that investigating leads, likewise if you believe it does exist then put yourself in the position of proving it doesn't. If nothing else this will help gain a more balanced perspective that articles need to address. Personally I find it hard to write encyclopedically when I'm feeling overly-passionate and sometimes this exercise helps strike a more thoughtful tome that leads to more constructive edits. We all want a great article. Benjiboi 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want evidence lol? We LIVE anti-europeanism, anti-white or whatever you wanna call it.186.212.235.150 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi: Uhm, how would you go about proving the non-existence of something? That's a logical impossibility. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes section[edit]

Crossposts

[ Crossposts had been added here and removed on 18 June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ][reply]


Third opinion request

The following was posted on my talk page.

"The main dispute is about the "stereotypes" described in that section of the article. Are these are the opinions of a small percentage of the North American population or are indeed so widely held that they can be classed as a stereotype? I think the former, and the other editor thinks the latter.
"You removed it from the Third Opinions page because we have stopped discussing it, but that in no way means that I am content to leave the article as it is. Its just that I see the current edit war as futile.
"We need to bring third parties in to help resolve the matter. I have already written to three academics for independent views on the matter. Only one has so far responded and it tends to back my own view, because what are described as pan-European stereotypes might, possibly, be national stereotypes but are almost certainly not pan-continental sterotypes.
"I have re-instated this to the 3rd party dispute process and hope you help get this resolved. The other editor has been away a week because he has been relocating, but I believe he should be back now. If you need us to get involved I am sure we will be able to help. --Tom 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have forwarded it here because it is a clear description of the dispute you relisted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an (actually my) opinion: Using the word "stereotype" about a belief does not imply that it is widely held, merely that it is uncritically applied opinion about members of a group merely because of their membership of said group. Therefore, even if only one person has this stereotype, it is still a stereotype. The question remains, however, whether such stereotypes are common enough to warrant inclusion. On this I have no information. However, we need some proof that it is common, if we are to claim that.

My suggestions:

  • the stereotypes about the French or Germans only warrant inclusion in this article if one can show that these stereotypes are being used to label Europeans in general.
  • The sentence "Stereotyping is another common form of anti-Europeanism, with several derogatory stereotypes relating to the people of European countries having a wide usage." needs changing. The words "common" and "wide usage" need backing up, or eliminating.

I hope you find this useful.

On an unrelated note: My personal experience, for its limited worth, is that North Americans perceive Europe and the UK and ROI as significantly different. Thehalfone 11:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (and later changed the formatting)[reply]

Third Opinion Presented - Begin
I don't necessarily see the issue here. If you take issue with French/German stereotypes being applied pan-European, I think that serves as a stereotype in it of itself, as it demonstrates how non-Europeans tend to think all Europeans are the same, regardless of country of origin. The premise that any one person can represent a group when that group doesn't directly appoint that person as their representative serves as possible definition of 'stereotype.' If this doesn't solve your issue, please restate your exact problem with the article the way it is written now. I will leave this as still active on the dispute resolution page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third Opinion Presented - End
Regarding Thehalfone's view that "even if only one person has this stereotype, it is still a stereotype". I did a web search on dictionary definitions. Although almost every one conveys the idea that a stereotype is an "oversimplification" and is "often wrong", about 50 percent of the definitions I found also use words like "conventional" "standardized" and "held in common" to indicate that a stereotype is normally widely held. Therefore what you describe is just personal opinion rather than a stereotype. So the issue I have to go back to still is still this. Do North Americans recognize the description of Europeans are effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures as a widely or commonly held stereotype? If the answer is yes then I am prepared to back down. But I still do not think that this opinion is widely held of Europeans as a whole.--Tom 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...while a sterotype is commonly held by a number of people, I don't think it's necessarily held by any requisite number of people. If six man are marooned on an island, with three of them becoming hunters and the other three becoming fishermen, and the hunters get into arguments with the fishermen because, for example, their hunting tactics tend to scare the fish away, and they develop perceptions about fisherman that they are inherantly demanding (that hunters must hunt quieter) and overly protective (of their beach-front fishing location), when really, this behavior is fully justified by virtue of the hunters' irresponsible and overreaching behavior (let's say), is the hunters' perception that "all fishermen are inherantly demaning and overly protective" not a stereotype, because there are only 6 people involved? Is it relative to the total population, so that it is a stereotype when 50% of the population possesses this perception, until an oceanliner crashes and now there are 2006 people on the island, and now less than 1% of the population thinks this way, it ceases being a sterotype? A stereotype is absolute, regardless of populated involvement. It is in this manner that personal opinions can be described as stereotypical, even though they may only be coming from one individual, or shared between a few members constituting less than 1% of the populace. What do you say about this suggestion? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I have tidied the text of my previous contribution for clarity and I hope that it does not alter the meaning of what I said or User:DRosenbach's response to it). The issue is not really about the extension of one stereotype to another as you implied in an earlier posting. The issue is one of truth regarding whether the words effeminate, dirty, cowardly, lazy and condescending towards other cultures comprise a recognizable sterotype of Europeans as a whole held by North Americans. That is the crux. My understanding of stereotype, and English is my native language, is that it is a bias in a population against another population. I agree that absolute numbers are not important, but the bias has to tend one way across the population as a whole. Otherwise what we are talking about are personal prejudices held by some individuals within a populuation. Here are some of the definitions of stereotypes I found include the following elements which refer to a generalised bias in the population. I have highlighted the words in the definitions that imply bias
  • A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
  • A standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
  • A simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group. --Tom 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that we are heading towards a linguistic argument, which might not be very useful. It is certainly true, as Tom pointed out that a stereotype is a standardised view. In any case to be reported here, it really should be widespread, to be notable. The question seems to be how widespread these ideas are, and it is not clear that we have this information. Thehalfone 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those are, necessarily, conventionally held stereotypes of Europeans. But I do believe that, in general, many members of a population will feel that the members of another population tend to view them as inferior, as it is understood that many people view themselves as being superior. Thus, Americans think America is so great, while the French probably feel that they are culturally superior to Americans. Thus, while Europeans are probably seen as condescending, I don't think that that is particularly specific to Europeans, because Americans are similarly condescending. In respect to being effeminate, I think that, perhaps, that can be a question of taste. For example, there is a common sterotype that people from certain locations in the Old World (France and Israel, in particular) wear overly tight slacks and extremely thin, silky shirts. To Americans, this may seem in line with the American gay culture. Whether or not this is substantiated, it is a commonly held stereotype, at least from where I originiate (Manhattan). Simply remove whichever stereotypical references you cannot agree on until they can be cited. Good-day! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. After discussion here and having raised it at Wikipedia:Third opinion the time we have established that there are stereoptypes of individual nationalities but not a pan-european stereotype. There are views held by some that may be positiive or negative towards Europeans as a whole but these are not held in common by a significantly large population to warrant the description of stereotype. The stereotypes section is therefore removed. --Tom 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I got to his thread too late but wanted to state that it seemed like much of that material was helpful and could have been reworded better. In general I'm against deleting whole sections of articles, especially when the article is small and there doesn't seem to be agreeement amongst the editors to do so. Benjiboi 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article may certainly be improved. Its particular weakness is a lack of discussion and documentation of Anti-Europeanism in countries other than the United States. Deletions which also remove citations are particularly destructive and disruptive. I restored the deleted section. — Athaenara ✉ 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for the article to stay but it needs cleaning up. Europe as a continent is not a uniform entity other than its geography. It encompasses many nationalities, ethnic groups, languages, religions, customs etc. I see that the section on Stereotypes has gone back in part, but these are stereotypes of INDIVIDUAL NATIONALITIES within a huge geographical area. Consider this. Would it be right for me to put a discourse on stereotypes of the Amish people into the article on Anti-Americanism? Of course not! The Amish peoples may be a sub-set of the American population, but any discussion about Amish stereotypes is meaningless in the context of Anti-Americanism. So why does this article on Anti-Europeanism carry a discourse on stereotypes of Germans and French? --Tom 09:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the current state of this article; Wikipedia is a work in progress. — Athaenara ✉ 11:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have side-steped the issue I raised. Either it would be justified to discuss Amish stereotypes on the Anti-Americanism page or it isn't. The article is about Anti-Europeanism (something that I accept exists in some contexts). But it is off-topic to start talking about stereotypes of sub-cultures without good reason.

If those stereotypes somehow fuelled a much wider Anti-Europeanism, it might be sensible to include it. But I don't think it does. Most Anti-Europeanism (in North America at least) that I have come across is, I think, fuelled by things like resentment about relative spending on defense compared to social programs, and a feeling that the European nations are quite happy to call for US help in say, resolving a huminitarian problem Kosovo, but then are reluctant to help the US in, say, Afghanistan.

The main part of the article describes this. It is not relevant to talk about national or local stereotypes unless they play a part in the phenomena known as Anti-Europeanism. Just as it would not make sense for the Anti-Americanism article to include references to regional stereotypes in the US (of say New Yorkers, or people from Seattle). The two things are different unless you can be sure it is otherwise. --Tom 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OF WHITE EUROPEANS[edit]

Sorry for the capital title, felt it was needed for some attention after that chronological re-arrangement.

I just want to ask if this article should not mention racial DISCRIMINATION of europeans? This article should be removed from the discrimiantion and racism categories, if it doesnt even mention those things.

The anti-semitism article has a racial and ethnic aspect to it, covering that phenomenom. If the ethnic and racial aspect of the discrimination of europeans does not suit this articles focus, I will make a new article covering that aspect, because it is a real thing that the Southern Poverty Law Center acknowledges as actual - there are black hate groups that discriminate europeans racially/ethnically. I want some response to this, and if you dont response I will take action accordingly and find a way to cover this phenomenon.

85.82.195.131 14:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is overly aggressive and belligerant, regardless of your assertions. Can someone out there look into warning this IP. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aggressive - I'm just trying to get some response. Now you are taking up something completely irrelevant, thereby destroying my attempt at this. It seems on wikipedia there simply is not will to cover discrimination of europeans. You are in denial, and if I wasnt so sane, I would think its some conspiracy. But I still cant seem to understand why you have so much will against this? Wikipedia shall be reported to leading humanitarian organizations for its discriminatory attitude towards whites, in the context of censuring the remote possibility of discrimination of this specific ethnic group to even happen, if nothing is done. So many people rely on wikipedia, and wikipedia is not fulfilling its responsibillity. Thank you. 85.82.195.131 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous user at 85.82.195.131. I have been trying to make sense of your postings and tried to trace back some of your earlier efforts. Am I right in thinking that what you are discussing Racial Discrimination against White Americans of European Origin? --Tom 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 85.82.195.131. I, like Tom, am not sure what exactly you are discussing. It would be useful if you could be a little clearer, and less heated, then we can have a proper discussion about the issues. Thehalfone 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you are right about the racial discrimination of europeans. Not exclusively european americans, just basically europeans. There is no (significant) coverage on wikipedia of the discrimination of europeans/whites in general, only a rant about anti-european-culture and "stereotyping of lazy germans" and so on, while the white on black crime is still rising with racial motivations in many case (I can back this up).
Sure, theres white racists, there has always been but they are becoming lesser, and thats already covered here. There is almost no coverage of black/non-white racism against white europeans, its a big taboo, and its significance is extremely undermined.
And every attempt, even small innocent attempts, that I make at covering this real-life discrimination, there is almost instant censorship. Why? I have no idea, but my guess is some kind of affirmative black action from white editors or maybe black editors being defensive or something.
I have tried to cover it in many different relevant articles, tried different words and terms, different degrees of directness, sometimes only vague mentions, other times more directly. Same result every time. Some guy or several guys dont like it, call it "irrelevant", "doesnt suit the focus of this article", etc, (even when its directly related, I couldnt even call Kamau Kambon who advocates the racial genocide of whites a racist) and the censorship continues. From here I almost give up, so I guess my future moves will be through human rights or humanitarian organizations and report wikipedia. Wikipedia has abused its huge responsibillity, disinforming hundreds of millions of users all the time through censorship, not doing anything about its elitary installation of censors.
85.82.195.131 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination is based both on realities and perceptions (which are considered real, at least to those who believe them). A good example of discrimination that might help in understanding is a "strait" guy getting beat up because someone thinks he's gay. The guy might be gay but even if he isn't he still is seen as such and is treated as such. For the purposes of this article discrimination is not only against Europeans but also those believe to be European. Benjiboi 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Timothy Garton Ash quote[edit]

I can understand an entry for Anti-Europeanism in general, but Garton Ash's quote is NOT a definition of Anti-Europeanism but an opinion on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaton75 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the citation of Timothy Garton Ash, a reliable source, which Keaton75's edit removed. The question of whether or not the quote in that reference should be displayed with {{quotation}} format is a separate issue. — Athaenara ✉ 04:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it may make more sense to include the quote in the references section, I still wonder what it contributes to a general definition of Anti-Europeanism. In essence all it says it that Anti-Europeanism is not very prevalent in the U.S.. If anything this quote should be included in the Anti-Americanism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaton75 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Europeanism in America" (NYRB Hoover) is not about Anti-Americanism, but some of its analysis may be pertinent in that article. — Athaenara ✉ 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article topic?[edit]

In spite of the impressive collection of soundbites under "references", it isn't clear what this page is supposed to be about. It looks as if somebody googled the term and then just piled up whatever came up in the results page. This approach may work for Wiktionary, but it doesn't establish any coherent article scope. The following are entirely distinct topics, with existing articles, which could at best be disambiguated here:

Anti-European sentiment is not an article, redirects to "racism" for some reason, perhaps possible move target? --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Europeanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Europeanism&oldid=1204891666"