Talk:Anti-Americanism

Lead image.

Why did the lead image change? The one of the two men physically tearing the flag apart was far more visually striking in my opinion, and keeps the focus on America itself. The current image has a risk of instead conflating standalone antiamericanism with anti-Israeli and anti-Saudi sentiments, it should be reverted. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The American flag isn't even that prominent out of the three, the previous one had an excellent angle of the stars and stripes facing directly into the camera. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree the old image is illustrative. I don't know why it was removed, I have readded it. Arenarium (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

My edits are being reverted by the same user just minutes after publishing them, without any apparent reason

I am opening this topic because on two separate occasions, it happened to me that I edited this article (Anti-Americanism), making numerous changes, corrections, additions of new information, citations, and hyperlinks, while making sure that all the added information was as much relevant and up to date as possible. Among others, I added countries where anti-Americanism has been the most widespread among their citizens, countries where anti-Americanism has been the least widespread among their citizens, and reasons behind the presence or lack of anti-Americanism in certain countries, including references and reliable sources that confirm that. The first time this happened to me was on 11 September 2025, and the second time was on 19 December 2025.

Both times, my edits (in which I put significant effort and I made them without a biased language as well as in good faith) were reverted only a couple of minutes after I had made them, alongside being made on both times by the person with the same account (the user that goes by the name @Slatersteven). Since that person reverted my first edit only three minutes after I had made it (my edit was made at 14:08 and was reverted at 14:11), while he reverted my second edit only four minutes after I had made it (my edit was made at 16:02 and was reverted at 16:06), I have a sufficient reason to be concerned that this person may not only be intentionally disrupting my edits but have also been stalking me online.

Additionally, I noticed that I have not been the only one who has repeatedly encountered problems due to @Slatersteven's disruptive behaviour. I noticed that, only on his talk page, several individuals (among them, @J.Weir3, @InvisibleUser909, and @Rangooner) asked him why he was reverting their edits, with one of them warning him that if he continues to engage in further edit warring behavior, his actions can result in him being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I would be grateful for any advice and any kind of assistance, as I believe that this user's behaviour is not only concerning but also unacceptable.

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did, I stated that (formone) there was a degree of repetition "or the American people or the American people", what does that even matter? Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

For two times in a row, you reverted two of the edits that I made in the same article and, in both cases, you did that just a few minutes after my edit was published. Additionally, I noticed that you did the same with the edits of another user (@Konnichiwa222), who made an edit to that same article (Anti-Americanism), on 30 April 2025. In this case, you also reverted the edits of that person only a couple of minutes after they were published.

Moreover, I don't understand what you mean by "(formone)"; however, I noticed that you wrote the following as a reason for this (on the edit history page): "Undid revision 1328391990 by LaMarmora1854 as well as repation for a sagtrt." I tried to understand what you meant by that ("repation" - maybe "repetition"), but unfortunately, I was not able to understand what you meant by that.

Furthermore, I don't think that a minor grammatical mistake (for which I am not sure that it was me who made it) should have been the reason to revert my entire edit, which was relatively extensive (5,349 bytes added).

I would be grateful if you could provide an explanation for why you vandalized my work (and, as it seems, the work of many others).

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I have given you one, your response is "well it was only a mistake", " present in many countries across the world; however, they have been currently the most " is also very poor English. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Nevertheless, one single mistake does not justify your actions of destroying so much work (5,349 bytes of added content). Additionally, "present in many countries across the world; however, they have been currently the most" is not as much an example of "a very poor English" as it is an example of cherry-picking; this has been evident from your previous conduct (vandalizing articles by reverting an extensive amount of work that has been done by other editors, including @J.Weir3, @InvisibleUser909, @Rangooner, and @Konnichiwa222, while using cherry-picking, faulty generalization, and other informal fallacies as a justification), when you were vandalizing articles and sabotaging work of other editors by using the same kind of informal fallacies as an argument.

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I want to step in and second LaMarmora. I read the content that they added and I really do not understand why it should be removed. The amount of removed content is staggering and I believe it is inappropriate. If you're going to remove that much content, you need to leave more than a single sentence in your edit message Or discuss it on the talk page. I have no clue what " And additions, not just a copy edit" means, and the meaning of "as well as repation for a sagtrt" very much eludes me. It seems like a large amount of content was removed for no legitimate reason. You do not have consensus, policy, Or even improving the article on your side as a justification for the edit. There's plenty of other work to be done on this website that doesn't involve reverting anything. In my view, your comments do not meaningfully address LaMarmora's argument or concerns and functionally equate to gibberish. I cannot tell you what to do, but I wanted to give my opinion that this behavior is deeply unproductive and not based in building a better encyclopedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I also want to second LaMarmora1854. The entire edit should never be reverted over a single issue; that should be sorted separately without reverting. I agree completely with that InvisibleUser909 has said, this is completely unproductive and not pragmatic in the slightest. Either give a proper reason for the extensive reversion and take it to the talk page, or restore the edit. J.Weir3 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I would like to express my utmost gratitude and sincere appreciation to both of you, @InvisibleUser909 and @J.Weir3, for your kind words and expressions of support for my argument, alongside sharing my views regarding the inappropriate conduct of reverting a relatively large edit as a result of cherry-picking or faulty generalization (giving as a reason for the revert an example of one single phrase that may have been written in "a very poor English").

Additionally, it is clear that @Slatersteven not only lacks a consensus for his unproductive and harmful actions but also evidently fails to provide a credible and justified argument for repeatedly reverting other users' edits. This is clear not only in the case of his reverting the edit that I made on this particular article but also in several other cases, where he also acted in a disruptive way by reverting relatively large, extensive, informative, and valuable edits that were made to this or other articles by other Wikipedia editors.

Additionally, your responses and confirmation of my views are more than welcome, as they not only confirm my views but also highlight the fact that I am not the only editor who has experienced unjustified and unreasonable disruption of his work.

(LaMarmora1854 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hands off Greenland protest by Christian Ursilva (9).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

How did Africans get to colonial North America?

Rjensen, regarding this edit which you explained with very few came to USA that way—aside from the fact that the claim in question is in the background section, and is about colonial North America before there was a USA to speak of—could you please explain what you mean, hopefully with some WP:RS? Thanks. إيان (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

They mostly came from the European sugar colonies in the West Indies/Caribbean. Millions of Africans were forcibly transported from Africa to the New World between 1501 and 1867-- this was the famous "Middle Passage" Only 3% to 4% went to the British North American colonies (the future USA, --includes a few to what became Canada). The rest went chiefly to Brazil and the Caribbean / West Indies. The vast majority of slaves brought to USA came from the European colonies Caribbean/West Indies --especially British colonies Barbados and Jamaica--also Haiti, Cuba, Santo Domingo, etc. colonies of French, Spanish Dutch. The Africans brought to Caribbean had very high death rates--but USA colonies were much healthier and there was rapid population growth especially in Virginia & Carolinas. quote: "From 1560 to 1850, about 4.8 million enslaved people were transported to Brazil; 4.7 million were sent to the Caribbean; and at least 388,000, or 4% of those who survived the Middle Passage, arrived in North America." source of quote: "The Middle Passage: Boston African American National Historic Site" online at https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-middle-passage.htm --For more advanced scholarship see Gregory E. O'Malley, "Beyond the Middle Passage: Slave Migration from the Caribbean to North America,1619-1807" The William and Mary Quarterly (2009) Vol. 66, No. 1 pp. 125-172 online /s/ Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding with your sources. The passing mention in a government website and a one-off article in the William and Mary Quarterly are inadequate for refuting the centrality of the Middle Passage in the history of enslavement in the colonial history of the US and its legacies. Besides, they don't support your removal. Gregory E. O'Malley, author of the 2009 William and Mary Quarterly article, elucidates his arguments more fully in his 2014 volume Final Passages. If the title itself doesn't make the argument abundantly clear, he explicitly states:

The scope of Final Passages reaches from the major ports of African arrival in British America (or the United States) to any destinations to which Africans continued their migrations. These disembarkation ports—such as Bridgetown, Barbados; Kingston, Jamaica; Charleston, South Carolina; and Roseau, Dominica—were not just end points of the transatlantic slave trade. They were entrepôts, gateways through which African captives passed en route to a host of colonies throughout the British, Spanish, and French Empires (and occasionally others) in the Americas. There are several reasons for focusing on the intercolonial trade from British entrepôts in particular. First, British merchants were among the most active transatlantic slave traders. Roughly 12.5 million African people entered the transatlantic slave trade, and British (and U.S.) traders carried more than one- quarter of them, more than 3.5 million. Only Portuguese, including Brazilian, traders carried more Africans across the Atlantic, and British deliveries outstripped even them during the slave trade’s peak years in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, British intercolonial traders engaged in a diverse range of slave transshipment activities. The outposts of British America—spread across the Caribbean, North America, and occasionally South America—adopted varied economic regimes and labor systems. In some regions, slave plantations anchored economies; in others, enslaved people toiled in more marginal tasks and professions. Not only did the labor demands of British colonies differ considerably over time and space, but so did the relationships of various colonies to Atlantic trading patterns. This diversity fostered a range of slave-trading activities within the empire. Transimperial commerce further bolstered the trade. British transatlantic traders delivered Africans to entrepôts in British America, and then British colonists or foreign settlers navigated the transshipment of the human commodities across imperial lines—legally or otherwise. Study of the intercolonial slave trade from British American entrepôts thus allows for analysis of trade and forced migration both within and beyond the British Empire. Exploring the range of routes African people traveled after the Middle Passage exposes many political and economic reasons for intercolonial trading activities, revealing many layers of profit from the further migrations that enslaved people endured. (pp 6–7, emphasis my own)

That enslaved Africans who would eventually go to territories that would become the US experienced a "layover" in colonial entrepôts in the Caribbean along the way does not negate the fact that they were abducted and transported across the Atlantic by coercive force. إيان (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

the issue is "anti-americanism" and the article originally stated that the MIddle Passage caused anti-Americanism. No reliable sources have been cited that make this original claim. The slaves who lived in USA were not captured or transported from their homelands by Americans. Perhaps they instead became anti-British and anti-Portugese??? Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Again this is the "background" section. The original argument that the layover in Caribbean entrepôts created a disjuncture that disconnected the forced transportation of Africans to North America from the institution of slavery in the colonial history of the US has been demonstrated to be false.

If you consult the cited source, you will find that it states:

Enslavement is not marginal to the history of the United States; it is inextricable. So many of our traditions and institutions were shaped by slavery, and so many of our persistent racial inequalities stem from its enduring legacy. Identifying the start of such a vast and complex system is a somewhat symbolic act. It was not until the late 1600s that slavery became codified with new laws in various colonies that firmly established the institution’s racial basis and dehumanizing structure. But 1619 marks the earliest beginnings of what would become this system. (It also could be said to mark the earliest beginnings of what would become American democracy: In July of that year, just weeks before the White Lion arrived in Point Comfort with its human cargo, the Virginia General Assembly was called to order, the first elected legislative body in English America.)

The claim that the forced transport and enslavement of Africans and its legacies in the American colonies and later in the US itself, led to separation from and resistance to central American institutions, is not original nor is it novel. The report commissioned by the US government itself to investigate racial tensions in the 1960s (you can read it here) said as much:

Twenty years after Columbus reached the New World, African Negroes, transported by Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese traders, were arriving in the Caribbean Islands. Almost all came as slaves. By 1600, there were more than half a million slaves in the Western Hemisphere.

In Colonial America, the first Negroes landed at Jamestown in August, 1619. Within 40 years, Negroes had become a group apart, separated from the rest of the population by custom and law. Treated as servants for life, forbidden to intermarry with whites, deprived of their African traditions and dispersed among South ern plantations, American Negroes lost tribal, regional and family ties. Through massive importation, their numbers increased rapidly. By 1776, some 500,000 Negroes were held in slavery and indentured servitude in the United States. Nearly one of every six persons in the country was a slave.

Americans disapproved a preliminary draft of the Declaration of Independence that indicted the King of England for waging "cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither." Instead, they approved a document that proclaimed "all men are created equal."

The statement was an ideal, a promise. But it excluded the Negroes who were held in bondage, as well as the few who were free men. (pp 95–6)

...and so on and so forth. إيان (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Anti-US sentiment in Latin America is "relatively high"

While it is true that anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America exists and has shaped the region's identity, the idea that such sentiments have been "relatively high" in the region is inaccurate.

This article itself proves that; the 2026 poll by Pew Research Center on the favorability of the U.S. in the rest of the world shows that Latin America is, on the contrary, one of the most U.S.-friendly regions in the world, with Peru, Argentina and Colombia showing more favorability for the U.S. than unfavorability, and Mexico and Chile showing less unfavorability than Canada and Western Europe.

So, once again can it be really be said that anti-U.S. sentiment is "relatively high" in Latin America? Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 16:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, so unless you have an RS that says it is not relatively high we cannot. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That's the thing: The affirmation in the lead ("anti-American sentiments have been relatively high among citizens of some Latin American countries") is not backed by any source whatsoever, and the body does not mention anything about "relatively high" anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 16:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

So are you saying we do not have sources that says its relativly high in Cuba or Mexico (for example)? 11:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)