Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Vietnam invasion

The US did not invade Vietnam; its forces entered the country at the request of the recognized government of South Vietnam. However, it did launch raids into neighborhing countries. However, since their intent was to influence the conflict in South Vietnam (not establish control of those countries), they probably don't qualify as "invasions". AdamRetchless 02:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Amasing! You mean that if you invade a country to influence whatever political outcome in another country it is a lesser invasion than if you tried to assert territorial control? Invasion is invasion, i.e. unauthorized crossing of sovereign border by one state into another - regardless of what was the intent.

This seems to be a conflation of war with invasion. All wars involved moving through territory. Websters says: 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.

Removal of poll from introduction

I removed the poll from the introduction. The paragraph equivocated to make a fallacious comparison in numbers. I removed it and put the link at the bottom.

A survey conducted in 2003 on behalf of journalists in 10 countries explored anti-Americanism, and revealed a huge gap between how Americans view themselves, and how they are viewed by others. This gap has widened dramatically during the presidency of George W. Bush. 96% of Americans believe that people in other countries want to live in the United States. By contrast, an average of 19% of people in other countries said that they would move to the United States if they had the opportunity. Details of this study are available at .

Basically, 96% of Americans believe that people outside the US want to live in the US doesn't mean that 96% of Americans believe that 100% of the world wants to live in the US. I don't know how you compare the 19% and 96% figures. 19% seems like a lot of people want to live in the US, actually. Do any other countries have a higher figure? That might provide an interesting comparison. Daniel Quinlan 04:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sloppy phrasing and terminology

I just want to say I have a pretty big problem with a lot of the phrasing in this article, and it is well exemplified by the recent addition about movies. A lot of the "anti-Americanism" is explained by referring to what "Americans" think, but this is used very sloppily to refer to totally different groups of people and then implicity identify them. The "usual American answer" to the lack of imported movies is whose answer? If you mean most Americans, I don't agree. I think most Americans like and appreciate a good foreign film, as witnessed by the enormous success of, say, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and may have an overall positive impression of French movies (I'm not sure, but are you?). The complaint about subsidies could not possibly be made by most people, who have no idea how the internals of the movie industries work.

But maybe it means the American movie industry's complaints. If not, what on Earth does this extracted and paraphrased portion mean: "Americans answer that Americans are not interested in seeing unknown foreign actors. This explanation is often considered a sign of arrogance and (or?) provincialism." I don't think I need to explain the myriad problems with this. (It reminds me of this Onion article (link may not be persistent).) If so, this is a very narrow group of people with an unusual niche in American society who should not simply be identified as "Americans".

Or maybe since we're describing anti-American sentiment, the claim is that it results from other nations irrationally confusing different groups of Americans and lumping them together. This is probably true in many cases, but we should say so explicitly rather than present a confusing explanation that makes no sense.

Comments welcome. -- VV 00:14, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article title

Would there be any support to giving this page a new title? The content, I think, is sensible--a fairly balanced summary of criticisms that have been made of the United States. The problem is that the title, "Anti-American sentiment" has a history (I believe) of being used as a term of propaganda. It is often used by American politicians of a nationalist stripe to characterize criticisms of America as irrational, with the tacit suggestion: "Their criticism has no real merit, they just hate us." An encyclopedia dedicated to the principle of NPOV shouldn't use loaded propaganda terms as article titles (excepting the special case in which the article is about the propaganda itself.) I suggest "Criticism of the United States" or something similar; with perhaps a separate article covering the controversial concept of "Anti-American sentiment".

Is there support for, or objections to, this proposal?

Opus33 00:50, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think this is a good suggestion. It might be good to indicate in the title that the criticism is usually of American policy, rather than America per se (although this is not always the case, I know). -- Cadr

Object. Leave it as it is. The title is appropriate to cover the content. RickK 07:40, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

True, the article is mainly about what is often described as "anti-American sentiment" or the like, but by giving it this title we're implicitly suggesting that all the criticisms of American policy detailed in the article are in fact anti-American, which is not really NPOV. It is possible to criticise America without being anti-American, so the title should be less loaded. -- Cadr

American Way of Life

Under the paragraph "The American Way of Life", there is the following piece:

The fact that girls in America are educated along with boys, that women can go out in public unescorted by male relatives, and that women have the same rights as men, including the right to vote and to serve in the armed forces, is also at odds with many religious or cultural traditions of some democratic and non-democratic countries.

I think that many countries which are "at odds" with the US on the status of women in America are far more likely to mention the things like lawful abortion, miniskirts, or the sexual revolution in general in more conservative societies, and anti-abortion violence, pornography, etc. in more feminist societies. The issued raised here are not really a cause for widespread anti-Am sentiment. Even the UN Millennium Development Goals has stated as one of its pledges as "Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015", and this as been approved by all 191 UN members. Kind of shady in article like this to focus on the things of unquestionably "good" morality, and none of the controversial issues. Anyone have an idea how this might be implemented in a --Gabbe 17:14, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's also worth pointing out that a lot of the examples mentioned are at odds with with American religious and cultural traditions to some extent -- it certainly took a long time for women to get the vote in America, for example. Cadr
It occurs to me that parts of the article really belong in something like "anti-Western sentiment", since it discusses phenomena not unique to the US. They are, to quote the article "neither exclusive to, nor originated in, America but are common in much of the Western world, it is thus unlikely that such concerns are sufficient motivation for specifically anti-American sentiment." --Gabbe 13:42, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Anti-American"

Cut from article:

It is misleading to place together under one label all people, ideologies, and attitudes opposed to various US policies or habits, particularly since America's people themselves hold very diverse values.

This is a POV. Whose is it? Let's identify the proponent of this view. For example, Josef Kolejprff said, "It is misleading to place together under one label all people, ideologies, and attitudes opposed to various US policies or habits. Besides, just because I dislike certain aspects of American society or government doesn't make me 'anti-American'. I am a genuine reformer and true patriot." --Uncle Ed 15:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It occurs to me that parts of the article really belong in something like "anti-Western sentiment", since it discusses phenomena not unique to the US. They are, to quote the article "neither exclusive to, nor originated in, America but are common in much of the Western world, it is thus unlikely that such concerns are sufficient motivation for specifically anti-American sentiment.

I doubt it. The Western hemishphere simply has more democratic states than average among the world. I happen to live in a country well ranked above the US in non-corruption, is a fluent democracy, and ranks pretty near the US in average wage. I cannot think of one right a US citizen has that citizens of my country do not, yet our country is constistantly classified as vehemently anti-american. YES. that's right! a Western democracy can disagree with another!! There are plenty of people who live in free countries who have the same rights as people in the US who simply don't like the USA. This is classified as Anti-Americanism, and is a legible topic for an encyclopedia, and it does exist. America is looked upon as slightly right-wing, free market etc. These are not traits actually characteristic of a democracy or the "West", they are characteristic of *America*. Hence the term anti-Americanism. If you want to be Anti-West, then fine, it's your choice. I don't understand why this is the relevant page to bring it up on though. America is *very* different from most democracies, it's as simple as that.

Do you have an idea what are you talking about when you say "The Western hemishphere simply has more democratic states?" You mean that Eastern Hemisphere (Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia) has fewer democracies than Western Hemisphere (USA, Canada, Mexico and South America)? W

The term "western" is frequently used not in a geographical context - which would mean that the sun would have no place to rise at - but in a political context, where it labels countries that support democracy and capitalism, cf. Western world, Western culture. Get-back-world-respect 12:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Conflation of anti-Americanism and hatred of America

The new intro seems to conflate Anti-Americanism with a violent hatred of America. Is this really a good idea? The term has been used to describe people with much less extreme views, after all. —Cadr

The term is used within a political spectrum of different polarities. It also is misused, to imply a philosphical association between violent "anti-American" acts, and a reasoned philosophical view of Americanism as a biased and self-congratulatory mythos. Maybe the two articles need merging. -SV(talk) 06:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Ps. I will be discussing things with VV on talk:Americanism
I don't find this convincing. You say "The term is used within a political spectrum of different polarities", which implies that there is some sort of polarisation between extereme "Americanism" and extreme anti-Americanism, when in fact the term is used in mainstream political argument. Then you go on to say that "It also is misused, to imply a philosphical association between violent 'anti-American'... acts and [more reasonabe views]", i.e. it is used to characterise non-extreme views as extreme as a sort of propaganda device. However this was not clearly explained in the introduction, and is in any case POV. —Cadr

I think the term should encompass all forms of AA. Trying to legitimize anti-Americanism by separating it from violent and hateful forms is not the job of Wikipedia

There however is a difference between criticism of the United States, which is also often mislabeled as anti-Americansim in attempts to ridicule and downplay it, and prejudices or hatred. There should be a clear distinction in the article. Get-back-world-respect 12:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Prejudicial heading

Ruhrjung: "Longstanding"-ness is not a very good criterion. Wikipedia is filled with bad writing and misinformation, some of it that's just stayed there through neglect. This article is one I've worked on fixing for a long time because it has so many problems. However, the edit introducing this heading was on the 13th of March. I do not see sixteen days as "longstanding". The heading is prejudicial (as are others, such as "American hypocrisy", that could probably be better), as it says US policies are anti-Muslim when they are not, and it fails to characterize the content. Changing it did not "suppress" the information; the allegation that support for Israel is because of anti-Muslim sentiment is mentioned in the text. If you want to write text about America's supposed anti-Muslim-ness, that would be another matter, but not this one. -- VV 20:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Correction, it says bias against Arabs, not Muslims. So it doesn't even explicitly mentioned it in the text, which makes the heading more inaccurate. -- VV 20:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Right - and I am currently not inclined to prioritize work on this article. USA's pro-Israel policy is hardly worth mentioning at the top of the list. I would propose to put that down ...very far down. (Most important things first!)
--Ruhrjung 20:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be opposed to moving it, since that's really just a cosmetic change, but my perception is that the US's support for Israel is a major issue in the US's relationship with much of the world today, perhaps its single most consequential foreign policy commitment. -- VV 21:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guatemala coup

"been alleged that the CIA was involved with the military coups in Brazil and Argentina." Why is Guatemala (50th anniversary!) omitted? WP not willing to admit it was more than allegations?

found some mention of it - not under History in Guatemala but History of Guatemala, cripes - and pointed to it. 2004 Apr 21

American culture

I'm not sure the section on cultural exports is entirely complete. In countries like Greece, for example, the non-Greek movies shown are almost exclusively American ones, because that's what people like. People on occasion are familiar with other countries' cinemas (mostly movies from France) but in general vastly prefer Hollywood movies, and US-made movies are really the only ones that gain any popular acceptance in the country, usually even more than local Greek movies (which generally have inferior production quality, due to very small budgets). This seems to be the case in many other countries as well—people simply like American movies, and watch them except when the government prohibits them from doing so by using cultural protection laws. --Delirium 21:43, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

American movies are not only watched so much because they are "better" but also because Hollywood can spend most money for marketing. Pathetic movies like Pearl Harbour, The 13th Warrior, or Hannibal never would have had as much success without those campaigns. You may also note that many of the successful non-US directors and actors go to Hollywood because it is the financial center for the film world, e.g. Alfred Hitchcock, Antonio Banderas, Wim Wenders ... Thus it is not that Hollywood per se makes the best movies but it attracts the best movie makers. Once non-US movies find enough money for campaigns, e.g. by winning awards, it often turns out that the audience likes them, e.g. in the cases of Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Nueva Reinas, Monsoon Wedding, Cidade de Deus, Elling, In the mood for love, Good bye, Lenin!, Trainspotting, The Last Emperor, etc. Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, fwiw, of those movies you listed only Trainspotting was popular at all in Greece. Perhaps it's a language thing—most young Greeks speak both Greek and English, so prefer films in either of those two languages, and definitely not in French. --Delirium 17:47, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Of the movies I listed only Amélie was French, and according to IMDB it was by far a bigger success than Trainspotting, even in the US. Monsoon Wedding was Indian and had about as much success in the US, maybe you just do not recognize it from the English title? Cidade de Deus (brazilian) means City of God, Nueve Reinas (argentinian) Nine Queens. Get-back-world-respect 19:38, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The dangers of Anti-American sentiment

I believe that this sections failed to present a neutral point of view, by mentioning only terrorists and failing to mention that terrorists comprise only a small proportion of those with Anti-American sentiments, and only a small proportion of the problems with Anti-American sentiment. One could say that it is equating Anti-American sentiment with terrorism, although obviously the rest of this article does not put out this view.

I thought the most suitable way of fixing this problem was not to remove this section, but to expand it in order to point out that Anti-American sentiment very rarely leads to terrorism, and that Anti-American sentiment has more practical implications not only for America but for the rest of the world. For example, anti-American sentiment affects the ability of countries to trade with each other. Anti-American sentiment also contributes to America's dislike of other nations and polarisation of opinion within America.

Death penalty and Canada

Japan's population is 127 million, compared to 290 million in the US. Japan executes about 2 or 3 people a year, in the US it is dozens. At least 118 people are under sentence of death in Japan. There has been one execution in Japan in 2003. More than 3,600 men and women await execution in the USA, where more than 750 executions have been carried out since 1990, 56 of them this year. The USA has frequently violated international standards in its pursuit of the death penalty, including by using it against the mentally impaired, the inadequately represented, those whose guilt remains in doubt, and foreign nationals denied their consular rights. In the past 18 months, the USA has executed four child offenders -- those under 18 years old at the time of the offence -- the only such executions known in the world in this period. And I do not quite see what ethnic diversity has to do with capital punishment. Canada is ethnically extremely diverse and has no death penalty. Get-back-world-respect 07:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Canada is ethnically extremely diverse. That is a humorous statement. mentions that the black population in Canada is a whopping 2%. This miniscule percentage is in a nation of 32 million people. The state of California alone has 33 million people, and there are 49 other states in the US. Do you really think that your most cosmopolitan cities (Toronto, Montreal) match the ethnic diversity of Los Angeles, New York City, or Miami? Just the Hispanic/Latin-American population in the United States is larger than the entire population of Canada (12.5% of 290 million people)! Don't like that source? has a listing the "top responses for ethnic origin" from the Canadian 2001 census -- the result is Canadian (39.2%), English (20%), French (15.75%), Scottish (14%) , Irish (12.9%), Italian (4.29)%, Chinese (3.69%), Ukranian (3.61%), and North American Indian (3.38%). If your census bureau is making distinctions between "Scottish", "Irish", and "English", and considering "Canadian" as an "ethnicity", then your definition of "diversity" is quite weak, since the United States would just lump them all together as "white".
Canada has nothing like the illegal immigration problem of the United States -- perhaps because people don't like the cold temperatures of the north? Illegal immigration into the United States begets wonderful benefits, but unfortunately (and realistically) problems as well, because there is no control over who is coming in, including criminals, people with non-law-abiding-tendancies , and a lot of economically depressed people who will be competing for jobs with the others already in the country.
Add to this mixture the tensions amongst different cultures, because different cultures have different values, and different viewpoints on "the way things should be". Just think about the tension between Anglophones and Francophones in Canada, where you have laws enforcing bilinguality, which some people strongly resent. In a state like Florida (16 million people, half the population of Canada), there is interethnic and intercultural tension amongst a segment of Hispanics, Latinos, Chicanos, and Cubans (it's complicated), despite a common tongue. Black Haitian immigrants, black Jamaican immigrants, and African-Americans don't always see eye to eye. Ethnicities usually reflect different cultures, different cultures have a different values, different values can lead to tensions, tensions mixed with economic distress can unfortunately lead to overheated violence, overheated violence can unfortunately lead to murder... and overheated murder can unfortunately lead to the death penalty under existing laws.
Interethnic tension is not limited to America; the massacre of the Tutsis by Hutus in the Rwanda massacre in 1994 was "racially" based, even though they look the same to me (both are black), while in Indonesia, Chinese businesses are attacked due to a combination of economic and ethnic tensions.
My point is that interethnic tensions are a reality, even when the distinction between the ethnic identities is slight. That doesn't mean they are justified, or should be condoned. But if it happens, it is going to happen on a greater scale in the United States than in any other country, simply due to the sheer numbers of immigrants, the wider variety of countries of origin, and the size of the entire population in actual numbers. The situation is more complicated than in Canada, and hence requires a different way to handle severe problems.
Now, the United States could always let its Death Row inmates move to Canada and live with Canadian families. Would you like to host them in your abode?
The USA has frequently violated international standards in its pursuit of the death penalty, including by using it against the mentally impaired, the inadequately represented, those whose guilt remains in doubt, and foreign nationals denied their consular rights.
In the word "international", to which nations do they refer? Certainly not "all nations of the world", but just the ones that happen to agree with Amnesty International! The "standards" which Amnesty International mentions are not equivalent to enforceable laws, otherwise Amnesty International would be able to sue for wrongful prosecution, attempt to overturn verdicts, and declare retrials. To what court would they turn? That's not how judicial or legislative systems work. What members of Amnesty International feel about the verdict of a particular case is irrelevant; otherwise, they would be participants in the jury. They aren't. They don't participate on the jury, they don't necessarily sit in the trial or see the evidence first hand or hear the witnesses testimonies first hand, and they certainly don't sit in the isolated room where jury members alone discuss the merits of a case amongst themselves. Jury members may be presented with evidence not open to the general public, due to the gruesome nature of the crime. If a jury decides that somebody is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", then Amnesty International cannot be so presumptious as to blindly believe the defense lawyers, who are paid to convince others of their client's innocence, regardless of the truth. And the defense lawyers have an extra incentive in pursuing a case to the limit of endless appeals: their future reputation and hence future revenue depends on it! They will say anything, including lies. Remember: it's their job!
I don't think even Canadian courts would overturn their own verdicts merely to accomodate a press release by Amnesty International.
Japan executes about 2 or 3 people a year, in the US it is dozens. Japan has a very homogeneous society, without the scope of illegal immigration and additional problems of interethnic tensions that I discussed previously. A homogeneous culture means a more conformant culture. Everybody in Japan speaks Japanese. Practically everybody in Japan was born in Japan. Practically everybody in Japan has the same ethnicity. Japan does not have to worry about large numbers of poor immigrants pouring into their borders because they will escort them out very quickly! -- May 25, 2004

I had heard Canadians complaining about US citizens' ignorance towards their country, but the anonymous author of the above article seems to be a particularly striking example. The CIA reports about ethnicities in Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%. If you had ever been to one of Canada's metropoles like Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal you would have noted that it is hard to find a dominant ethnicity. Toronto is considered by many as the most ethnically diverse city of the world. "Toronto is home to virtually all of the world's culture groups and is the city where more than 100 languages are spoken."
By 2001, Toronto's visible minority population accounted for more than 50 per cent of the population. "The top ten source countries for immigration to Canada were China, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Iran, Sri Lanka, The Philippines, Taiwan, Russia and Jamaica in 1996." [1] When I lived in Toronto I was impressed by how welcome Canadians made foreigners - like me - feel and how much they cared for people with different cultural backgrounds getting along with each other. Multilinguality is only one sign for that. In Toronto you can find signs for the names of streets in Chinese and Korean. After only a few years immigrants are generally accepted to be "Canadians", wherever they had come from, and newspapers frequently report whether efforts to give immigrants equal chances on the job market were successful.
"International standards" are for example treaties the US signed guaranteeing foreign citizens the right to access consular services. The International Court of Justice has ruled in several cases that the US violated the treaties it signed, but the US simply ignores the rulings although it sends judges to the court. Another case was the Reagan supported terrorism against Nicaragua where the US simply declared that the court was not entitled to rule upon the case, even when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution where only Israel and El Salvador voted with the US.
Would you also say that Sudan does not violate international standards when thousands of civilians die in massacres, just because no one enforces the standards?
If for you ethnic diversity means that there are many blacks or that the number of millions of inhabitants matter for the concept of diversity I think you have a problem. And in my eyes someone who argues that the USA needs the death penalty because of its ethnic diverse population shows nothing more than what an utter racist he or she is. Get-back-world-respect 23:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
You are an excellent example of Canadian ignorance and stupidity. You did not read carefully the links that I gave you.
And in my eyes someone who argues that the USA needs the death penalty because of its ethnic diverse population shows nothing more than what an utter racist he or she is. Once again, you show your ignorance and stupidity. That is not what I said. I said that an ethnically diverse population, compounded by illegal immigration, leads to a different set of problems that justifies a different way of handling the problem.
When I lived in Toronto I was impressed by how welcome Canadians made foreigners - like me - feel and how much they cared for people with different cultural backgrounds getting along with each other. My own case is similar -- my parents emigrated to the United States from China. One of my sibilings is married to a Hispanic. Many of my cousins have marriages to other races. But since you do not bother to read the links that I gave you or to ponder the information that I wrote, and are obviously stubborn in your point of view and wanting to bash the United States all the time, I see no need to continue the conversation. I have visited Canada many times, including Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, and Halifax, and your definition of "diversity" just doesn't cut it. May 25, 2004

Quite telling that first of all you still do not dare to sign your messages, second, you try to insult me, which says more about you than anyone else, third, you still think I was Canadian which I am not, fourth, you are still refusing to accept that Canada's population is ethnically extremely diverse, fifth, you keep telling us that the death penalty was a way of handling problems with immigration, sixth, you accuse me of bashing the United States although I never did that but criticized certain political decisions and you personally for racism. As is mentioned in the article, anti-Americanism is just a label some people try to batch on everyone who criticizes US politics. Most people are not anti-semite either, and still the United Nations would have passed dozens of resolutions condemning Israel's violations of human rights if there had not been continous US vetos. About half of the US population is extremely critical of some of George W. Bush's actions. Do you think half of your country's population is "anti-American"? Sadly enough, continous violations of human rights and international agreements, most prominently in Latin America and now in Afghanistan and Iraq, have created a lot of hatred and indeed something like anti-American racism. But many US citizens seem to be most worried about Europe, where most people can still distinguish between the politics of a government that takes a lot of decisions that are controversial even domestically, and the people, many of which are very popular all over the world. Get-back-world-respect 11:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Er what has levels of ethnic diversity got to do with the death penalty?. I'm struggling to see a connection here. G-Man 12:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I guess the anonymous who tried to spread prejudices against Canada was the same as the one who started the discussion above. No one ever said that Canada was more ethnically diverse than the US, I only said that Toronto is regarded by many as the world's most ethnically diverse city and that other big Canadian cities like Vancouver and Montreal are ethnically very diverse as well. You may want to be informed that, as with so many things on earth, ethnic groups as well have more shadings than just black and white. Get-back-world-respect 19:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear anonymous editor, as you could have concluded by now, I am neither Asian nor do I live in Canada nor do I try to hide the truth. Why do you not register and explain yourself here rather than engage in stupid edit wars? Get-back-world-respect 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just as a point of fact, I don't know how you define "ethnically diverse," but I doubt Toronto is more diverse than New York City. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Where is the fact in your statement? I lived in Toronto for a year and read that statement in a travel guide. Given that there is no ethnic majority in Toronto, I lived in a Jamaican district with many Portuguese, on my way to university crossed the Korean district north of one of at least three Little Italies and China Towns, and came along restaurants from more than thirty countries I do not find it hard to believe. Get-back-world-respect 20:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The page was protected because an anonymous engaged in an edit war about the mentioning of the frequency of the death penalty in the US compared to Japan. In case she or he can explain the reasons here, please do so, otherwise please refrain from deleting the sentence and allow unprotection. Get-back-world-respect 12:54, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone object to protection being lifted? If not, I'll do so today. Yours, Meelar 15:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)