text:
Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 1

This article should focus around certain incidents, like Malmady, the Holocaust, etc., to provide a more tangible and substantial article. The WWI and WWII sections could remain, but they should be expanded. A section should also be added for the 19th century after Germany was unified, and also before.

About Anti_German sentiment
What about a web site like this http://www.thetrumpet.com. Should not be something like this be part of the article. LordofHavoc 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues
Thank you in advance for your responces. --Molobo 09:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * German antisemitism made use of accusing Jews of anti-german sentiment-this should be added to the article.Right now such information is being deleted
 * German nationalists also used accusations of anti-German sentiment to justify wars, territorial conquests and persecutions of other ethnic groups.This also should be added.
 * Right now the article states that that there is anti-german sentiment in Poland and Norway.It doesn't explain why. They are several historic reasons for existance of such sentiments in Poland-WW2 atrocities, lack of persecution of those responsible in many cases, lack of war reperations (As for lack of reperations, about 1/3 of Germanies national territory was given to Poland in 1945!) the fact that Germany didn't reckognise Polish border till 90s,actions of certain groups in Germany.This explanation should be added.
 * The article contains information that Germany was a peacefull country during postwar period.This is true-however Germany didn't relinquish territorial demands towards Poland for a very long period, which served as breeding ground for anti-German sentiment.This should be added.
 * The article claim that German people suffer unjustly from stereotypes. This is true and shouldn't be changed.However we should add that reason for steoreotyping can be minorities in Germany such as Neo-nazi organisations still present in Germany, nationalists parties that score points in local elections, and attacks on asylum seekers that happen there etc.

 * Sure, that's a good way to ensure Anti-German sentiment in the article on Anti-German sentiment ;) Are the reasons you've stated part of your personal essay, maybe? Verify, don't guess. Sciurinæ 14:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

''
 * Sure, that's a good way to ensure Anti-German sentiment in the article on Anti-German sentiment ;)

No, that's the best way to ensure there won't be anti-german sentiment-acknowledging historic mistakes or wrongdoings made by German nationalists, trying to hide them will ensure in continued distrust towards German. Anyway this is unimportant. Wiki isn't for creating opinions, influencing views or evoking emotions. It is just for presenting facts. You would have hard time arguing that Jews weren't accused of being Anti-German in German antisemitic discourse. It's only natural to put information on using accusations of anti-German sentiment by German nationalists and antisemite-similar statements can be found in other articles describing such attitudes. --Molobo 14:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, but shhhh, let's not talk about the calls for justice - sentence you proposed, or it might blow up your cover. Sciurinæ 14:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about ? What do you mean about "blow up your cover". I am sorry but please state your questions and proposals clearly. Could you explain what you mean ?

--Molobo 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Already forgotten? Out of sight, out of sense. Then I'll try to jog your memory. I'm talking of the sentence you added just yesterday into this very article. It reads "Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media ." We had a nice little revert dance over it and I talked to you on your Talk:Page about it and you answered to it in a way that completely confirmed my suspicion that it was just your personal original research. Surely there's nothing wrong about German media bashing in defence of the Polish right-wing President. Ahh, the sweetness of propaganda. Against this background, your all too noble *guidelines* for this article look a bit ethical egoistical and hypocritical in my opinion. Sciurinæ 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sciurinæ, may I refer you to our policy No personal attacks. Molobo proposes some improvements to the article and in response you accuse him of anti-German sentiment. Not everyone who is German or from German descent will think that it is wise to minimize issues at the cost of objectivity. But even if you do believe we should act that way, I ask you to refrain from personal attacks on those who wish to add to the depth of the discussion in this article. Thank you for considering my request. gidonb 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Gidonb, with 'anti-German sentiment' I was talking of the content added, not the contributor. I could have said 'anti-German content' but that would have spoiled the little silly joke. In fact I've never ever called Molobo anti-German as far as I remember. And that's despite the fact that I've had disputes with Molobo over several months, you know. It is mutual, by the way, as far as I know Molobo hasn't accused me of Anti-Polonist either. I guess you confront me because of the little dispute over the Germany article that we had, or more specifically this sentence of me: "Nice try, esp the ridiculously sharp edit summary 'why blown out of proportion. because they are 'only' Africans?'. No, I'm no racist. Should I turn the table now and ask whether your emphasis on what is 'is considered one of the worst atrocities in German colonial history '[8] in spite of little mention, if any, in history books on German history is not anti-German POV-pushing?"
 * The reason for it was that I found your previous handling offending too, and not only your first statement on the talk page but also the rhetorical question in your edit summary. Sure, that's no excuse to do the same there but don't forget that you then continued and alleged that "[you] believe[ed] that the problem lays in [my] viewing facts as pro-German or anti-German," which instead of actions denigrates the user: this is personal. But I guess you're right about me not appreciating Molobo's efforts. Molobo's actions took a u-turn for the worse yesterday, because unlike before, his contributions did not consist of the usual enumerating of German war crimes against Poles or (over)emphasising of certain aspects, but a triple-defamation in three different articles at the same time, protecting each of them with revert warring, whether the defamations were inadvertently or intentional. Ok, basically you're right about his improvement today but to assume good faith about a statement like "Calls for justice and those issues to be resolved have been often labeled as anti-German in German media ." is something I cannot do anymore and its condemnation is something I don't regret at all. I'm sorry over the dispute the two of us had over the herero - sentence and that I didn't seek to talk on the discussion page back then as the first. (Molobo now uses the dispute as propaganda against me anyway, so don't worry about me not being dealt a blow) After all the disputes with Molobo I had come to the conclusion that to take a hard line is the best solution if you feel that something makes the text bias. Molobo's disputes with Ghirlandajo showed it is an effective way to keep the propaganda out and I always had the impression that my talking to Molobo is less useful than talking to a wall. And least conversations with walls don't spamm the entire talk page ;) (like here talk:Anti-Polonism). Okay, you're not Molobo, so sorry for the comparable treatment. If this here should really turn into a constructive discussion with Alexbulg's help and another a second Anti-Polonism, my cold reception of his guidelines was probably out of place. It remains to be seen... Sciurinæ 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to attack all around you for negative opinions you wish to assign to them, rather than discuss the issues that are being raised, you are not going to making this a pleasant community to work in. This is precisely why I referred you to our guidelines. gidonb 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sticking to the issues
Good, Molobo, it pleases me indeed to see you act the way you did here. Sticking to the issue, addressing relevant matters, leaving the discussion for the Talk Page and not re-reverting to your version; one may say you should have done this before actually editing the article, but that is irrelevant when such an overall positive attitude can be observed. As I have disagreed with you in the past, it would be unfair not to recognise your commendable change of behavior. Let´s stick to the discussed topics, one by one, then.

 * German antisemitism made use of accusing Jews of anti-german sentiment-this should be added to the article. I agree. In a very related sense, it reminds me of the discussion surrounding Anti-Polonism. As in that article, anti-Germanism is both a reality and a fiction, closely related. A reality, since there is an authentic sentiment among several ethnic-religious-national circles. And a fiction, since it also is an ideological forgery used by certain extremist German groups to divert acussations of Anti-semitism towards them. So basically, we observe the very same situation that exists in other European countries, and the matter was referred to at Anti-Polonism regarding the Polish case. Just like at said article, I propose we make here a section similar to the one you added there of "Misuse of the term", in this case explaining the misuse made by the German fringe political parties and/or politicians, and clearly separating it from the real anti-German sentiment as deontological phenomenon. Allow me to warn, however, that such a sensitive section should definetely have extensive and solid sources and references, like the ones provided at Anti-Polonism. I'm afraid that leaves the Google books you provided out of the equation. Websites in foreign languages must be translated at the relevant parts, and the translation posted here. It shouldn't be too hard to find alternative (verifiable) sources; I'll help with that if I can.
 * German nationalists also used accusations of anti-German sentiment to justify wars, territorial conquests and persecutions of other ethnic groups.This also should be added. Another point that could be added at the Misuse of the term section. No objection if properly distinguished from the true matter.
 * Right now the article states that that there is anti-german sentiment in Poland and Norway.It doesn't explain why. They are several historic reasons for existance of such sentiments in Poland-WW2 atrocities, lack of persecution of those responsible in many cases, lack of war reperations, the fact that Germany didn't reckognise Polish border till 90s,actions of certain groups in Germany.This explanation should be added. While I praise your intention, there is also a major WP guideline at stake here, and it is that of relevance. WW2 as a major historical issue in the perception of Germany and the German people is properly mentioned at the article, without going into unnecessary detail. In fact, if the intention of this article was to make a list of all the points of conflict between Germany and Poland, it should definetely be renamed to German-Polish disputes and conflicts throughout History (no, I hope no one edits that link!) and it would be huge, starting in the Middle Ages, continuing through Prussia and the Kingdom of Poland, the XIX century and the German Empire, Bismarck, WWI and the Treaty of Versailles... I feel that it is well enough as it is; everybody knows about WW2 and the deep impact it caused in the German-Polish relations, and the event is well referenced as such. Further including specifical political issues is also, at best, speculative; there is no way to know if i.e. "the actions of certain groups" have had a major impact in the Polish population over any other fact(s) which are not mentioned. To sum it up: it is undenyable that, as you say, the major chasm between the nations was WW2 and its many consequences; further enumerating issues which relevance to the article is debatable at best can add nothing positive to it, other than stirring an useless discussion over the extent of the impact of each of them in the German perception abroad.
 * The article contains information that Germany was a peacefull country during postwar period.This is true-however Germany didn't relinquish territorial demands towards Poland for a very long period, which served as breeding ground for anti-German sentiment.This should be added. It is true that some German politicians have made demagogical territorial demands towards Poland (although often destined to their potential voters, rather than to Poland itself). Yet, the connection between anti-Germanism and such episodes is not so clear. Stating that there exists anti-Germanism in Poland because of it, is not only extremely simplifying the issue, but it also lies on the verge of original research. Of course, if you could provide a number of sources that qualify whithin the criteria we've discussed above (thus proving a direct connection between both facts), I'd be happy to see it at the article.
 * The article claim that German people suffer unjustly from stereotypes. This is true and shouldn't be changed.However we should add that reason for steoreotyping can be minorities in Germany such as Neo-nazi organisations still present in Germany, nationalists parties that score points in local elections, and attacks on asylum seekers that happen there etc. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. The stereotype comes rather as result of WW2, and the facts that you mentions (while authentic) are insignificant in their impact on the German image abroad. It is widely known that Germany has one of the highest immigration rates of all Europe and it possesses one of the most flexible asylum systems when compared to i.e. France or the UK; and one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe is precisely the German one. Yet never has Germany witnessed events of minorities protesting for being discriminated or mistreated as it recently happened in France. The facts that you mention have indeed a much smaller presence in Germany than France, for example, and as such, its importance regarding the image of present day Germans is irrelevant.

Thank you in advance for your responces. My pleasure to answer, Molobo, I hope we can get to discuss more in this same constructive way. Alexbulg 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion in a few days, after New Year. --Molobo 13:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the examples of Anti-German sentiment you brought to our attention. 129.13.186.1 15:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Henryk M. Broder made already in 2001 a polemic analysis of Polish nationalism [Alkoholismus, Antisemitismus und Beleidigtsein] (sorry in German) after attending a polish memorial of the [Jedwabne Pogrom]. LanX --217.224.46.29 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WW2: What else?
In my opinion this text and the discussion are too much restricted on the Second World War and unnecessarily trying to relativate the accusations. (Even though it seems that WW2 is almost everywhere the main reason for anti-German sentiment or at least the best way to express it.) This is too much political correctness. The article should not be about what happened in the War and how Germany stands to its past. It would be sufficient to mention the item - however important - and maybe its origin and popularity as the anti-American or anti-French (which mentions e.g. poor hygiene) pages do. You might write about the tourist occupying a wheel-chair with his towel, the perception of the Russo-German-pipeline project in Poland and Lithuania, ´Old Europe´ and the Iraq war, racism of German police (which is I condider in general an unjustified claim) ... [Stupid question, but: How do you properly sign?] fsd 16 Jan 2006 (CET)

 * Like this: ~

 * You may also want to look into getting a user account.

 * I know of no anti-german feelings that don't involve the recent wars, btw. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well we could include something on American right wing criticism regarding the positions towards the Iraq War. Most of the criticism however was towards France and even that seems long forgotten. I think that Germany was quite active in Afghanistan. gidonb 01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is essentially no right wing american opposition to germany due to Iraq, largely because they are allowing us to use our bases in germany to great affect in Iraq (unlike say Turkey). Sam Spade 11:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That is another factor why it was never pointed as much against Germany as France. Also I think France got on the nerves of some people here by their very active diplomacy, for example in Africa, to keep Hussein in power and the oil-for-food program running. They even wanted to continue the program after Saddam fell.
 * Sam, just to take this back one step: You asked for other criticism, I supplied a small lead. Bear in mind, however, that everything next to the German conduct during World War II and German nationalism beforehand, including the genocides in Namibia, will be minor issues like the one I just pointed at. Perhaps it is better to look at the issues before the war, if you really want to diversify the sources of anti-German sentiment. Cheers, gidonb 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I only speak of what I know. I am an american living in Germany. I live off base, but much of my social contact is w the american military. The only criticism of the germans I have heard from americans is in regards to WWII, and specificaly that they are perhaps not guilty enough, and should apologise more often. Prior to the Iraq war there may have been some concerns about france, germany and russia opposing the war, but at this point... the climate has changed, and besides, that was never anti-german in nature, but rather a foriegn policy debate.

From other europeans (I chat w the earth as often as possible) the criticisms are still mainly in regards to the 2 WW's, but there are also some feelings that germans are xenophobic, haughty, loud, and similar to "robots" (I heard that last one a few times, altho its weird I know). Sam Spade 10:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Your personal observations fit mine: most of the anti-German sentiment, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa, is related to the Second World War and the holocausts. gidonb 12:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What I have personaly noticed is that Germans are very tidy, friendly towards americans, and bigoted towards the east. My one German friend doesn't even like eastern germany, much less poland, turkey or russia. Racism against jews (as opposed to slavs and turks, which is common) appears non-existent however, and is extremely politicaly incorrect, assumably due to the history. Those are just my personal observations tho, certainly not encyclopedic unless cited. Sam Spade 13:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Notice however that many racists in Europe use their "love" for the Jewish and gay communities to prove what villains the muslims are in their eyes. Luckily in the US I am not a pet of racists. Hardly met such people here. gidonb 14:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Americans are far less racist than one might think from being one (as I am), particularly when they are compared to somewhere else. The PEW research center actually has some evidence showing that americans are more likely to see a benefit from minorities than anyone else they studied. Interesting that, considering how benevolent modern europe is portrayed in the media... Sam Spade 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I totally agree. The US is heaven on earth for anyone who is not part of a majority, including women who are the majority (51.1% in 2004). gidonb 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, heaven on earth for gays, abortionists being shot, new immigrant laws, murdering indians and marginalizing them in reservations, lynching afro-americans, having still a ku-klux-clan and turnig away fleeing jews at the beginning of ww2. u r definitely right! i applaude your objectivity--85.180.30.212 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO sentiment about Germans in the USA is very divided depending on whom you ask, and this is mostly along ancestry. There are positive and negative stereotypes, and Germans mostly fall in the positive, especially German-Americans. At the very least, they're considered civically responsible, law abiding, and hard working. I think where anti-German sentiment tends to flair up is among certain extremists and even then it's mostly issues-related. Nobody, for example, would not want to live next to a German. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't hire somebody because they were German... promoting them might be a different story. If you think that someone is a "robot" that means you value their productivity but not their decision making ability. It would be interesting to see a section devoted to perceptions of Germans in the business world, perhaps also sentiment following Daimler-Benz's buyout of Chrysler?

 * I think if you write this article from an american point of view, it will be a kind article. Although both countries were enemies in both world wars, there are no traditional hostilities. Germans experienced the Americans as "fair" victors (unlike, say, the French after WWI or the soviets after WWII), and Americans did not suffer from the wars as they were fought far away from home (again, unlike countries like France or Poland which were heavily destroyed by the fightings). So, the US certainly is a nation with a quite positive attitude to Germans.
 * Things are much different in Europe. Here, anti-German sentiment is widespread until today. Nazi crimes & WWII are its upper and most visible layer, and some countries indeed had no serious anti-German feelings before it. But some conflicts are much older than this, probably a normal thing among neighbors...
 * So, anti-German sentiment is strong in most of the countries which had been occupied during the war (France, Benelux, Denmark/Norway, Poland, Czech Republic, Serbia, Greece, Russia...)
 * England is a very special story. Although they haven't been occupied (and thus were much better off than, say, Poland), they are somehow obsessed by Germany until today. I am tempted to say that while other nations suffer for decades after losing a war, the English couldn't cope with winning one :) Anti-German sentiments in England are hard to unterstand, it might have to do with kind of "disappointed love" from both sides:
 * WWI was the first war ever between both countries in history,
 * both countries had a century-old tradition of hostilities with France, so they were supposed to be "natural allies" (as proven during the Napoleonic wars)
 * both countries' culture is quite similar, they both represent protestant Northern Europe in contrast to the catholic, latin-language southern part (France, Italy, Spain, ...)
 * even the ruling dynasties were narrowly linked: German empereor William II. was the grandson of English queen Victoria; the english dynasty is of German origin.
 * So, the Entente cordiale and WWI obviously caused a kind of trauma in anglo-german relationships which did never heal since.
 * Countries not affected by Nazi occupation have much less objectives against Germany (Switzerland, Spain, ...)
 * Countries or regions which were fighting for independence against former German enemies sometimes saw wartime Germany as a possible ally (Flanders and Ireland in WWI, Croatia and the Baltic states in WWII), these places tend to be more German-friendly than others until today.
 * At last, we need to mention that whereever a large country has a smaller neighbor of a similar culture, there are traditional rivalries (take England & Ireland, the US and Canada, Spain and Portugal...). Germany has nine neighboring countries, and eight of them are quite smaller than it. So, in most of this countries, this phenomenon applies, even if it is quite harmless and has nothing to do with wars and Nazis. It just means that Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Swiss etc are regularily considered to be Germans during their summer holidays in France or Spain, which upsets them a bit. I consider this a very normal thing between neighbors of a different size, so it has to be distinguished from the Nazi-related sentiments.
 * Outside Europe there are much less anti-German sentiments (at least, that's my impression), as people know little or even nothing about the Nazis and the holocaust. So, in places like Asia or the Arab world, the average image of Germany is much better than in Europe. I think that these differences should somehow be mentioned in the article. --Magadan ?!  13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You make good points in my opinion, except when you state that "Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Swiss etc are regularily considered to be Germans during their summer holidays in France or Spain". It is hardly the case for Belgians, Dutch and French-speaking Swiss. Tocquevil 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * French-speaking Belgians and Swiss may be mistaken as French in third countries, which might be unpleasant for them as well ;-) I was told by Dutch people a couple of times that they have been mixed up with Germans abroad, and that they met people who didn't know that dutch and german are seperate languages. But of course, i did no scientific research, just some talks with travelers I met. --Magadan ?!  11:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The US is heaven on earth for anyone who is not part of a majority, including women who are the majority (51.1% in 2004) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaa..... *ahem* sorry, this is one blatant lie in a talk page i really couldnt not make some sort of reply to. 203.5.217.3 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Organised persecution of ethnic Germans
OK, first of all their is another article which covers the same thematical area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_persecution_of_ethnic_Germans#United_States

I decided to start my points here, because the former participants seemed to be quite reasonable. Please excuse my english...

It was doubted if their is anything like a anti-german sentiment, well some facts:

Take the anti-german propaganda in WWI : I.e. in Josef von Sternberg movies german soldiers with pickelhaube where portrayed as plundering France and raping and killing their women. Take [Hearts of the World] or "The Hun Within".

AFAIK German speakers were the by far biggest immigration group in the US, more than English speakers including Irish. More than 20 % of the American population claim to be of German descent. Before WWI almost 10% of the schoolkids got their education in German, hundreds of newspapers were puplished in German.

All of this ceased to exist, plenty of people were encouraged change their names (Schmidt->Smith), abandon German culture and assimilate into Anglo-Saxon America. look at http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/german8.html

Nowaday I know plenty of Hollywood movies about Italo-Americans, Irish-Americans, Afro-Americans, Latinos ... even Russian-Americans (the Deer Hunter).

What about German Americans? (please except the Amish in "The Last Witness" and criminals of war who immigrated after war). The only simpathetic example I can remember is the Father in [Rich Man Poor Man] ... hei look he was a soldier in WWI and immigrated afterwards.

You can tell the German influence in modern American cultur is everywhere: Hamburger, Bretzel, Hot Frankfurter, Christmas Tree, Brother Grimms Fairy Tales but where are the normal american born Germans in Hollywood?

How many American stars with German heritage used their German family name? Neither Doris Day nor John Denver. It seems the only who dare using their German names are Jewish actors like Jack Klugman.

Some other facts: In Brazil, France and several eastern european countries the German minorities were forbidden to get german school lessons.

We shouldn't discuss here if all these actions were justified, we should discuss why they are completely unknown to the public.

LanX --217.224.5.152 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Concerning the one who said their are no Anti-English sentiments, never spoke to Irish people ... or he may ask South Africans especially Afrikaaners about their feeling about British concentration camps during the Boer Wars. Or Chineses about the positive consequences of the Opium Wars.

Sophistication
That is all a bit simple, gentlemen, is it not? Would you not agree that a highly complex and heterogenous industrial society like the German (of which 10 % are of non-German provenance) deserves a bit more differentiation than the insight you provided so far? Apart from wondering, where you've got all your information about that society's current situation from, it does not seem very sophisticated to me, if you lump all sociological aspects of a diversified country together and declare an over-all condition about how the ordinary German of 2006 is. As for America: That a society, whoose very identity and strength is based on the phenomenon of mass-immigration from a politically fragmented Europe, is more welcoming to immigrants than traditional societies is self-evident. Teodorico 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Teodorico, more sophistication is precisely what we can use in this article. If I understand Sam correctly, this is also one of the reasons that brought him to wonder if we can find more sources to the sentiments. In other words, I like what you say, and encourage you to just go for it. As for the US: yes this was usually the perception of immigration, although economically and even socially there were and are different indications on (perceptions of) costs and benefits from immigration. But who cares, globally speaking we just love diversity, as evident from the research that Sam also refers to. For more sophistication on American immigration and diversity, also with a lot of (self) critisism, please see other articles then this friendly exchange between an American in Europe and a European in America. Reagrds, gidonb 17:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

citation needed
I removed this : "However, although the German and French governments have good relations, anti-German sentiment is still widespread in France", I don't know of any anti-German sentiment among the people that were born after WW2. And the elderly almost forgot about the war (they were kids). That means a major part of the French people don't dislike the Germans. If you can find a survey that proves you're right, go on.

lame concept of the article
One would need to include much more history than done so far. Beside, the devision into time periods is nonsense - anti-"what ever" sentiments don't start or stop at once - they build up slowly, are given from generation to generation and divide into political criticism which are often abused by politicians and than turn into sentiments towards a certain population and (partly pretty simple) generalisations. If consequent, we would need to divide the article into a prejudices-section and political-criticism-section. But as it is done so far, it does not make sense at all, sorry. --Mandavi 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I demand the immediate creation of the articles Anti-Islandic sentiment, anti-purple sentiment, and Anti-Broccoli sentiment. -- 790 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't forget Anti-Sentiment sentiment. White Guard 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a Joke?
So there was anti-German sentiment during WWI and WWII? My goodness, what a surprise; hostility towards the enemy? Who could believe such a thing? How dreadfully unreasonable! In Germany, in contrast, there was nothing but peace and love towards the various enemy states. In WWII there was so much love that they insisted on bringing as many men from occupied countries (in spite of their anti-German sentiment, it should be said) to experience the joys of the Fatherland, whether they wanted to come or not. Once there they were expected to work for love, getting no money and precious little food. This was, of course, simply to show them the errors of anti-German sentiment. Peace and love was also shown by the simple-minded and innocent Germans when they killed Allied aircrew, no doubt for expressing some unreasonable anti-German sentiment.

Will some sane person please, PLEASE tell me this article is a joke. White Guard 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in its current form it's hard to swallow, esp. from a German and/or professional encyclopedic perspective. But the idea of WP, as you probably know, is rather to do something about it than to simply complain. Subversive element 09:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm being ironic, heavily so, rather than complaining. To do something about an article presupposes that there is something worth doing.  In my view anyway this page is just intellectual junk. One really could create literally any page with the 'anti' prefix.White Guard 22:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There's always WP:AFD, so there's really no need to be ironic because it's not helping with anything. That aside, stereotypical reduction of Germans to war robots and Nazis still occurs on a regular basis, and not only in UK tabloids ("Helmet Goal" and "Kill the Krauts" in the context of *soccer* are still among my all-time favs). Steven Spielberg didn't even let a German play the part of Oskar Schindler so as to prevent any promotion of a positive image of the German people. Most European school kids (and many thoughout the world) are still taught, let's call it selectively, about German history. If you enter any pub in the UK, there's a good chance that people will sarcastically greet you with a raised arm when they notice you are German. Those, of course, are things that do not at all belong into the article, but I think it's fair to say that there is something as anti-German sentiment. It's understandable to a certain degree, but not to the existing and persisting degree, and that's why it is a phenomenon worthy of an article, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I still agree that the article is in a bad shape as of today. Subversive element 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for that. I'm sorry but the whole article simply invites irony.  Can you imagine there being no 'anti-German' sentiment in the course of two World Wars?  The selectivity you are taliking about with regard to German history also, I think, affects the teaching of Russian history, with Stalin substituted for Hitler.  It's bad practice, I know, but I don't think it reflects or causes 'anti-German' sentiment.  I think the other examples you give are most probably related to English football supporters, not the most enlightened group of people.  But this is returned in full measure by similar factions within Germany, where I have heard Wir Fahren Gegen England (We advance against England) sung quite openly, all the worse because this is a Nazi song.  I take much of this, quite frankly as a joke; one in very poor taste, but a joke nontheless.  There may, as you suggest, be some room for articles on negative perceptions of different nationalities, but where would this stop?  The possibilities are literally endless.  However, one thing we do agree on is the very poor quality of this page as it stands at present.  If you think some of the British preconceptions of the German are bad try having a look at German preconceptions of the British: there we are, don't ye know, wearing bowler hats, drinking endless cups of tea and chasing foxes. Tally Ho!White Guard 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh sorry, I almost forgot-I have a question for you. Can it be true what you say about Spielberg and the part of Oskar Schindler?  I would have assumed that for an English language film he would simply have been looking to cast a leading Anglo-Saxon actor?  Now if he really wanted to be negative about the Germans he could have cast one in the role of Amon Göth.  White Guard 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the movie, even Amon Göth is a charismatic, not entirely Nazism-comsumed character (in fact, he is in love with a Jewish woman, which was a major crime back then). But many of the minor Wehrmacht/SS people were portrayed by German actors: Business as usual, but nevermind.
 * About German stereotypes about England/the English people: OK, tea and fox chasing is there. But those are not really negative, are they? And there are in fact many really positive stereotypes/assumptions, which one might consider sort of prejudicial (like the one about all black people being good at basketball), but in fact attest to honest respect for the English/UK people: a) British humor is intelligent (Monty Python are very well known here, and even UK TV ads are renowned for their cleverness), b) British music is the best and most influential in the world, c) British eccentricity (combined with humor) attests to positive "trend scouting", etc.pp. Comparable stereotypes about Germany, if they exist, are tainted with the past. Germans are never quite trusted. Or, (hey, maybe this is it!) they never quite feel like their are being trusted. Maybe that's something worthy of inclusion. In German, there's the word "Deutschtümelei". It has a very complicated meaning, reaching as far as to the constantly asked question "what is German?" and primarily describes the specific German tendency of a national minority complex, the quasi-pathological desire to be loved and respected and so on. Subversive element 12:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Have a look at, if you have not already done so, George Orwell's essay on British Boys Weeklies. Writing in the 1930s he examines the various stereotypes of other nations depicted in these publications.  The Chinese, for example, all have pigtails, even though this had ceased to be accepted practice after the fall of the Ching dynasty in 1911; the Scandinavians are stupid and the Italians treacherous.  The point is, I think, that false stereotypes probably take two or three generations to work themselves out.  You are quite right to suggest that the German stereotype of the English is a lot more benign than the English stereotype of the German. The image of the brutal and humourless Prussian was one shaped by events, but even that will go in time.  I don't truly believe that it displays any deeply rooted anti-German sentiment.  White Guard 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What can I say? Sounds reasonable enough, maybe you're right. On the other hand, Germans tend to have ambivalent feelings of envy and despise toward other peoples that are not easily caught in a single stereotype. For example, Italians are envied for their alleged easy-going attitude and at the same time despised for allegedly being unreliable. Maybe the idea of anti-X-sentiment is really wrong altogether. How about articles like "German sentiments" instead? Subversive element 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I suppose it really depends what you want to achieve. There seems to me to be a strong element of 'victim mentality' in this whole page, which serves little constructive purpose.  The whole concept, as I have said, is quite historically specific.  What I mean by this is that anti-German feeling in Europe, such as it is, arises from the actions of a particular form of the German state, and a particular period in history.  No similar hostility is shown, as I have argued elsewhere, towards the Swiss Germans.  The possibilities for this kind of article, as you admit, are endless, but will always be conditioned a given set of circumstances.  I had a look for 'Anti-British sentiment' and all I could find was Perfidious Albion.  Now, though those familiar with the history of international relations will be aware this term, most British people have never heard of it, and would be baffled-and amused-by notions of 'Anti-British sentiment', though these were real enough at one time. The point is that British people really do not care what others think of them, and have a generally comfortable relationship with their past, imperialism and all.  I suppose there is a degree of complacency in this; but in the end its probably an admirable position to be in.  Germany's relationship with the past is obviously more problematic; but even here issues can still be faced and transcended.  This article goes nowhere near reaching such a goal.  Your suggestion of 'German sentiments' is, perhaps, a little too vague, and could mean literally anything.  You might consider 'Perceptions of Germany', though again I am not sure this is adequate.  It all comes back in the end to what you hope to achieve.  White Guard 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree with you. With my "German sentiments" idea I was rather trying to make a point than a sincere proposal: What I meant (and I was actually being ironic... really, let's put this article up for AfD) was a more subjective and honest and maybe even good-hearted humorous position could be achieved by not talking "anti" but "pro", in an article about the different sentiments "pro or contra" we Germans have on other people. My point was simply that such an article would win my favour, but wouldn't belong on WP, either. It would be the "anti anti" article to this one, and in the end it's the same, isn't it? Articles like this one just invite subjective comment, POV pushing, nothing specifically encyclopedic to say the least. So, you have convinced me: Ironically about being ironic as well as sincerely putting this article up for AfD or WP:PROD. As of now, noone has objected the idea of deleting this article, so AfD discussion might not even be necessary. Subversive element 09:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Is this the only article of the Category:Anti-national sentiment you'd want to be deleted? Sciurinæ 09:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Good question. Clearly, anti-Semitism is the least negotiable of all. But articles like Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Catalanism, Anti-Armenianism and the like should be subject to rigorous scrutiny with regard to possible POV, and to their validity and merit. Sub  versive  09:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Amongst the seriously disgruntled, I am perceiving a very narrow understanding of the topic that is due in part to both ignorance regarding the subject (there is little in this article to convince them otherwise) and personal bias. This is just as legitimate an area of study as "Anti" anything else, beginning with immigration to the United States and the Polish view of the Germans long before the World Wars. As far as remaining objective in other anti-x articles, good luck telling that to some of the sympathy groups that has a particularly large contingent. As of now, I don't understand why there are ten thousand warning labels despite the fact that there is very little content on here to even dispute. What exactly is being disputed?--72.92.7.49 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I go along with almost all the criticism levelled at the concept and validity of this article, although it should come as no surprise that an article like this exists, when the badly conceived and frankly unjustifiable article on "anti-Americanism" is not only undisputed, but it was, for a while, given a "good article" rating.--Chris Camp 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Primary Reason for Anti-German Sentiment
Prior to 1870, Germany did not exist. Prussia, under the leadership of Bismark, unified most of the German speaking countries by coersion or force, thus creating Germany. Suddenly, there was a new power in Europe greater than France or England. Those two powers especially resented the new power, and the new power felt left out and behind in the world-wide colonization and overall world-wide influence race. This was the root cause of World War I. After many long years of war, and after the entry into the war by America, it became clear to the German people and government that winning the war, if even possible, would take many more years of sacrifice on the homefront, and many more lives on the battle front. This is why Germany sued for peace. England and France, instead of being grateful for Germany's surrender which ended the slaughter, negotiated the punishing Treaty of Versaille which plunged Germany into poverty due to the heavy reparations they were required to pay the opposing forces. This poverty was the breeding ground for the rise of the German National Socialists party(Nazis). Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazis pulled Germany out of the economic depression, and restored German pride. For this he was viewed by Germans in a similar way Americans viewed Franklin Roosevelt. However, Adolf Hitler, a World War I veteran, believed that the Germans were on the verge of victory during World War I, but were sold out by the German-Jewish population. This conspiracy theory resonated with many Germans who were seeking self-esteem after the humiliating Treaty of Versaille and the poverty which followed. The rise of the Nazi party to power in Germany lead directly to World War II, which was a "revenge" war on the part of the Germans against the rest of Europe and to the slaughter of European Jews and those determined to be racially inferior by the Nazis. This revenge war and holocaust then led to further anti-German sentiment throughout Europe and America, as was to be expected.

The statement in the Wikipedia that anti-German sentiment is not high in America is incorrect. The American movie industry has propogated anti-German sentiment during and after World War II, and even into the 21st century. Millions of decent family men were drafted into the service of the German army and the Waffen SS during World War II. They were arguably the most effective fighting force of the war, yet all Germans are stereo-typed into racial bigots, cruel, and inhuman killers. Their acts of valor and bravery will never be told in America or England. Some will say, how can someone perform acts of valor when fighting for such a brutal government? How could they be a hero? This attitude is bigotry. They were fighting for their country and their families. To broad-brush all or even most Germans of the World War II generation is bigotry. To keep showing inaccurate movies like "Saving Private Ryan" keeps the hate alive. The Germans appear to have buried the hatchet. When will Americans? At some point, a future German generation, being just human, will not accept the guilt anymore and rebel against all the self deprecation. The world will likely say "There those Germans go again."

 * Good synopsis. Here is an example that deserves consideration, the Walt Disney film, Sleeping Beauty.--72.92.7.49 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney, etc.
Sleeping Beauty is an interesting case study. Look carefully and take notice that, in a short scene early on, many of Maleficent's hellish warthog hirelings wear pickelhaubes. Later, after the spell has been cast by evil Maleficent (involving the spindle), a longer scene shows the three fairy's sneaking into Maleficent's castle, where we see the warthogs (with their pickelhaube's covered, it appears) dancing around a wildfire like pagans.

Consider this scripted scene, as the three fairy's unchain the prince and free him from the dungeon, producing for his use a sword and shield:

 * ''Fairy 1: so [I issue to you] this enchanted shield of virtue and this mighty sword of truth. For these weapons of righteousnness will triumph over evil.

 * (Prince takes the weapons)

 * Cut to a shot of a bird of prey, suspiciously similar the German eagle. The bird alerts the demonic warthogs, who emerge charging down the steps, now donning their pickelhaubes.

 * The prince fends them off with the shield and sword of so-called "virtue" and "truth" and races to his horse. They continue to fire weapons of all kinds, but with the help of the fairies, they turn into soft and harmless things like bubbles and flowers

 * lastly, at approximately 01:07:17:00 into the film (1 hr, 7 min, 17 sec), the bird is transformed into stone by one of the fairies as it tries to alert Maleficent that the prince has escaped. If that isn't an incarnation of the German eagle, I don't know what is.

Now don't forget kids, sympathizing with "German nationalism" is sympathizing with Maleficent, or in other words, hell. Now before I continue, it should be mentioned that some are of the opinion (Brothers' Grimm) that SB was a Germanic tale and it certainly has a Wagnerian feel. Oh, the irony in the fact that Wagner is the centerpiece of proud Germanic identity that the Nazis and the Kaiserreich were seen to be exponents of.

Now Perhaps the Disney film and its references to Prussianism are not an implication against all Germans, but I think the problem we run into here, just like any other Anti-x article, is whether negative sentiments attributed to the "percieved behavior of a group" demonstrate a group bias or hatred against "certain members within that group for doing y". Hence User:White Guard's somewhat sensationalist argument that "oh those poor Germans, if one they hadn't been expansionsist, etc" While it is ironic that, he too, generalizes, I think it is important to mention that the destinction between these two different "haters" has never been made, especially in regards to anti-Semitism.

Again, SB may or may not be the same broad brush that the previous contributor mentions, but along the lines mentioned above, what it says about certain Germans is just as anti-German as a money hoarding caricature of a Jew is anti-Semitic. Certainly, the film's portrayal of "Prussianism" is an oversimplification that best resembles Allied propaganda from the First World War, blaming those "within group x for doing y". In this case, y seen to be aggressive militarism, but again, we run into difficulty in attributing bias.

Does it matter why such labels are attributed, for example, in the midst of war or a certain political situation? I think the same must be asked about modern day Anti-Americanism. What is the case here? It is interesting to note that the phrase Prussianization has entered the vocabulary as leftist jingoism, regardless as to whether such conditions even existed in Prussia or Germany.

A lot of British propaganda towards Germany in WWI focused on the "barbaric characteristics" of Germans. In 14-18: Understanding the Great War, it is mentioned that British papers cried out about the barely civilized Germans who could not resist war and had barely tamed their "animalistic tendencies" or "attributes", i.e. their "primal" eating habits and excessive feet sweating. Comments?--72.92.7.49 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above seems a little far fetched. The anti-German sentiment is direct in war movies. Germans are portrayed as inferior fighters to the allies. In the movies, somehow Germans outnumber the rest of the world, but through superior fighting ability, the world wins. The fact that there were far more German heroes and acts of valor than on the allied side is ignored. There should be a movie made of Erich Hartmann, greatest ace of all time with 352 kills, or of the Panzer units whose tank kill ratios were astounding. This is not because Germans were supermen as claimed by the Nazis, but because they experienced more combat and were therefore more skilled. They lost because they were overwhelmed. This should not take away from the allied heroes and acts of valor in any way. It would have taken longer to defeat Nazi Germany were it not for them. Of course Hollywood is in a WWII allied country and needs to sell movies, but they should lighten up on the broad brushing of all German soldiers as hateful racial bigots. I personally witnessed how the brutalities of war affected some soldiers in Vietnam. The difference is that on the rare occurrences of American atrocities, the government condemns them. There is no doubt that if we had a brutal government like the Nazis behind us in Vietnam, those few instances of atrocities would have quickly escalated into government sanctioned war crimes.

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guerre 14-18-Humour-L'ingordo, trop dur-1915.JPG

title: Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 1


text:
User:JDooley

I think the concept of the wiki is great- I set one up for our office to communicate, and seems to be taking off.

My major contributions are on the artists Jacque-Louis David, Bill Peet and Adrian Frutiger. Strange combination, I know.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:JDooley


text:
User talk:Ieopo

welcome. CambridgeBayWeather 04:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks. =)

A549 cells
Thank you for creating the A549 cells article, I have cleaned it up to conform to a higher standard. — Wackymacs 14:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Frvade
Frvade.com One tough ass puzzle for the slick.

Printable organs
You're right; I may indeed have been a bit too hasty in deleting this as linkspam (note, though, that G3 references Vandalism, which in turn lists Spam). However, the article as it stood still consisted solely of the words "Ink-jet printing creates tubes of living tissue." plus a long list of external links; it still qualified as a speedy delete under the A1 criterion (a very short article with little context). If you want the content back to aid in writing a more complete article, I'd be happy to copy it here, or move it into your userspace. —Cryptic (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

reminder
The article on van gogh should have a "gallery" with a beginning, next... end. How do art museums arrange themselves?

License tagging for Image:MoebiusMu2.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:MoebiusMu2.PNG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Image legality questions. 22:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ieopo


text:
Talk:Bad faith (existentialism)

Bias?
This article, while appearing to be written with a fairly competent grasp of the philosophical and psychological concepts, looks as if it needs a major NPOV clean-up and is performing quite a lot of original research - it's phrased in a way that draws conclusions and also appears to read very biased against Sartre's "bad faith" in particular and possibly Sartre's viewpoint in general.

I don't see any neutrality issues until the end of the "Freudian Framework" section. After that, there is the criticism section, where criticisms lie. Maybe move the Freud criticism towards the "Criticism" section.

--

A response: Agreed. The Freudian critique of Sartre's bad faith is interesting and perhaps even valid (although I don't think so), but it has no place on this page in the sense that it's used.

For instance: "It is with the Superego that Sartre lodges his chief complaint". This is clearly an argument to invalidate Sartre and is thus a subjective matter rather than a statement of fact or theory.

 * Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~ at the end.
 * For the record, I didn't write this part, but it is with the superego that Sartre lodges his chief complaint. This doesn't invalidate Sartre.  Its just the way things are.  This can be verified by briefly glancing at pages 153-156 of Essays in Existentialism:
 * In the psychoanalytic interpretation, for example, they use the hypothesis of a censor [read:superego], conceived as a line of demarcation with customs, passport division, cur rency control, etc., to reestablish the duality of the deceiver and the deceived...The subject has the same relation to these phenomena as the deceived to the behavior of the deceiver. (p. 152 - here he begins his argument against Freud's division of the psyche)
 * Thus psychoanalysis substitutes for the notion of bad faith, the idea of a lie without a liar; it allows me to understand how it is possible for me to be lied to without lying to myself since it places me in the same relation to myself that the Other is in respect to me... (p. 154 - here he begins to pull together his arguments against the Freudian division)
 * These various operations in their turn imply that the censor is conscious (of) itself. But what type of self-consciousness can the censor have? It must be the consciousness (of) being conscious of the drive to be repressed, but precisely in order not be conscious of it. What does this mean if not that the censor is in bad faith? (p. 156-157 - and here he starts his full on criticism of Freud)
 * In other words, this isn't criticism of Sartre from a Freudian perspective, but Sartre's criticism of Freud.
 * However, the sentence at the end can go, and the whole article needs citations, so it isn't as if there's no work to be done here. -Seth Mahoney 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Wouldn't the censor be more accurately interpreted as the ego. In Freudian psychoanalysis it is the ego that mediates between the id and the super-ego. I'll not speak to having read Sartre but it seems like that is a more accurate interpretation. More likely the article needs to be rewritten, for if, as the article indicates, there is a question of the super-ego withholding information from the ego consciously (an idea that would fit in with Freud) then the wording is poor. -Atosecond (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Faith
This section is two paragraphs long and still does not explain what bad faith is. It doesn't even mention the term in the body. This needs fixing. -dbsanfte 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Bad faith is explained in the introduction:
 * He coined the phrase bad faith in order to describe the state wherein one denies his or her total freedom and sees oneself as an inert object.
 * Is there something more that you would like to see added? -Smahoney 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a logical fallacy here. With the mugger example, the writer gives a number of possible choices. But one has the choice "to die?" That seems to me to be not a free act, or in any case the free act is that of the mugger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.72.104 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
I moved the following text here:

 * Bad faith occurs when we try to reverse Sartre's utterance into 'human reality is what it is and is not what it is not' (or in Popeye's case, 'I am what I am'). In the reversal, I try to kid myself into believing that I am "a philosopher" or "a chef", and I try to disguise my freedom from myself.  I pretend that I have no other choice in the matter, even though I know fully well that I do.  By pretending, Popeye and I end up as 'cowards', because we are frightened off by our freedom and seek to dismember it.

 * ''Sartre tells us that we should avoid bad faith, and live an authentic life. We should not try to posit ourselves as things in the world, and we should not adopt social roles and norms that undermine our freedom.  At this point, the critic asks of Sartre: "What is the authentic life?" Once we posit ourselves in the world we lose our freedom and can not be authentic.

 * Further, Sartre's proposed solution to "self deception" does not really appear to be accurately describing a person who is self deceived. In Sartre's view, the waiter only tries to wish away his freedom.  At no point does the waiter actually say "I have no freedom", he simply finds it a burden and seeks to dispose of it.  There is no deception that is occurring.  Sartre's description more closely resembles "role playing" rather than "self deceiving".  In a role playing situation, the individual acts out a stretch of time as if he were something else, but he knows (with a capital 'K') that he is not that thing.  Sartre's examples (in particular the waiter and the woman) also appear to follow this thread.  The waiter and the woman do not seem to be deceiving themselves with regards to their freedom to make choices.  They choose to ignore it.  This leads to the debate whether or not self deception is really even plausible.

 * Let us consider a raging alcoholic named Bill. Bill exhibits the signs of alcoholism, sees the signs of alcoholism in himself, is aware that the signs he sees in himself are enough to qualify him as an alcoholic, yet he does not believe he is an alcoholic (to get smarmy, Sartre would probably agree with Bill, because Bill is refusing to posit himself as a thing).  Bill appears to be deceiving himself about his alcoholism.  Is he?  It seems equally likely that Bill is just having an intellectual failure about the link between his alcoholic tendencies and the fact that he is an alcoholic.  In Bill's mind, he may have both a concept of his alcoholic tendencies and a concept of what alcoholism is, but he may not conceptualize a link between the two.

Because (even if it isn't) it reads like original research. If these criticisms can be attributed to a philosopher's work, great - it needs to be done and I'd be glad to see it returned to the article with citations. If not, it is original research and doesn't belong in the article. -Seth Mahoney 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sartre's Position?
I know that Sartre, for a time, held the position given in the first few lines of the introduction. Yet, after his experience in World War II, he changed some of that, noting that "life had taught him the 'Power of Things'", as he put it. Should the opening sentence be changed to

Jean-Paul Sartre at a time held the position that human beings always have the capability to make rational, conscious decisions.

or is there no sufficient indication that this changed fundamentally later on? --84.186.189.156 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Prune it!
This rambling article needs to be pruned to concision.

Examples from literature?
Perhaps someone should add a few examples of bad faith from literature? Say, The Metamorphosis or The Stranger?

Bad Faith is Sartrean
It is important to note that Sartre is neither the first nor only existentialist philosopher. Furthermore, Sartre's notion of bad faith relies on the existence of radical free will, which not all existentialists grant the existence of. Insofar as there are similar notions in the philosophies of other existentialists, that should be noted. But we should not pretend that Sartrean bad faith is central to non-Sartrean existentialist projects. 67.237.160.175 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Freud Stuff
At the end of the article there are some tags for missing citations to Freud. But my impression is that the whole discussion is basically Freud as seen through Sartre's eyes, in Being and Nothingness, Bad Faith chapter. With some slight modification, the mentions of Freud could be turned into "According to Sartre, Freud believes..." and all could cite directly to BN straightforwardly. In case anyone wants to do the legwork. 96.25.72.119 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The Freud section should not be referred to as a "framework" or "solution" to the "problem" of bad faith in this article. Sartre goes through a pretty comprehensive argument in the Bad Faith chapter that shows how there can be no clear distinction between the Id, Ego and Superego: that a repressed impulse has to be conscious precisely because it is being actively repressed. Sartre seems disenchanted with psychoanalysis in the Bad Faith Chapter, and if there should be any mention of Freud in this article, it should more accurately represent Sartre's discussion of what are, to him, inadequate models of how consciousness functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.87.237 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * (indented prior entry). Agree, I was gonna just pull the entire section or recompose it but decided I didn't want to waste time on it, it wasn't bad enough to delete with prejudice, just not very good. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

St. Thomas Aquinas discussed bad faith before Sarte, but in the same sense
St. Thomas Aquinas dsicussed bad faith before Sarte, in an almost identical sense. Perhaps this article should be merged into a larger article on bad faith in all of philosphy. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge as section of more general Bad faith article
This article should be merged with other bad faith articles into one, since "bad faith" was part of philosophy long before Sartre. The use in law overlaps that in philosophy. This article can be a section in a more general article, which includes bad faith in ethics, in theology, in law, and elsewhere. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as this particular conception of bad faith is a core component of existentialist philosophy and lumping it in with the rest would be a disservice to readers interested in that philosophy. It would be more apt to merge it to the existentialism article, but that is precluded by other concerns. Best,  Skomorokh   17:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, too, but not with strength. I thought the question should be raised and discussed. PPdd (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I also disagree, for the reason that Sartre uses "bad faith" as a term of art in Being and Nothingness and introduces it with the explicit caveat that he does not mean it in its traditional sense. To merge the entry on existentialist bad faith with one on other uses of the phrase would be like combining the entries on John and John Quincy Adams. Aptninja (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bad faith (existentialism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050324003106/http://sartre.org:80/ to http://www.sartre.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bad faith (existentialism)


text:
Isola Maggiore

Isola Maggiore is the second largest island (at approximately 24 ha) on Lake Trasimeno, in Umbria, central Italy. It is a frazione of the comune of Tuoro sul Trasimeno, and is the only inhabited island on the lake, with a current population of 35.

History
St Francis of Assisi lived 40 days on this island as a hermit during Lent (probably 1211 although the date is unsure). The 12th century Church of Saint Michael the Archangel was built on the top of the hill.

The island's only town reached its height in the 14th century, after the establishment of a Franciscan Monastery in 1328. Most of the towns buildings date from this period.

By the 1800s the town had a population of 700 and was in decline.

The Guglielmi Castle was built in the 1880s on the site of the monastery, but has since fallen into disrepair. The castle was in the process of being turned into a luxury resort and spa, but in 2010 the company declared bankruptcy.

From the end of February 1944 until 18 June 1944 the castle was used as an internment camp for Jews and political prisoners, sent there for their own safety by the Fascist Prefect of Perugia Armando Rocchi, who was under German instructions to send them instead to a concentration camp at Fossoli, Carpi di Modena. After the Fascist authorities left Perugia and the British arrived at Sant'Arcangelo on 19 June the prisoners were eventually rowed to safety by the island's fishermen, to whom a monument has been erected in the open space next to the Lace Museum. The rescue was organised by the island's priest, don Ottavio Posta.

Economy
Today the town is dependent on fishing, agriculture, tourism and traditional Irish lace making which was introduced in the 1900s. Some of the olive trees on the island are hundreds of years old.

Visitors can explore the old town and hill; paths cross the island through the olive groves.

title: Isola Maggiore


text:
Talk:Joint replacement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ernielum, J La, UCSF PharmD Candidate, SLin101, C.Nowak, PharmD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Future headings to include --Mylesclough 05:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Headings all inserted --Mylesclough 05:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

=o Joint Replacement? ==

Should this article be moved to Joint Replacement? The article is largely about the surgical procedure (Joint Replacement) while the title is that of the implanted device (Replacement Joint). Joint Replacement currently redirects here. 69.123.113.89 12:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That is currently a redirect to here. Since typing either takes you to this article do we really care which it is at? RJFJR 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

=Arthroplasty= Should this article be combined with Arthroplasty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbersinstitute (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Agree' Mschamberlain (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Huge disadvantage is its "expiry date"
Joint replacement only lasts for 15 years or so... not very long... Not first line at all in terms of Tx 129.180.139.48 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint replacement. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212203938/http://proceedings.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/content/abstract/86-B/SUPP_III/353-b to http://proceedings.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/content/abstract/86-B/SUPP_III/353-b

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Background Information Can Be Updated
Just a request, would www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888777/#__sec4title be useful for some extra information?

Modelmat (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joint replacement