Talk:Global arrogance

Organize

Ghazaalch I might organize the article differently. I would divide it into two sections "Usage" and "Arguments". The "Usage" section would be a list of all those who use this term, including the Iranian government and protesters[1][2]. The "Arguments" section would include why this term is used and it should use attribution for each argument and not be in wikipedia's voice.VR _talk 15:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent. I appreciate your help.Ghazaalch (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vice regent. This article has been nominated for speedy deletion, because, they say "there's already a page about that topic at Anti-Americanism", but Global arrogance is a term like Great Satan and has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism which is a concept. Isn't it? Ghazaalch (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Vice regent. Do you have an answer for the last issue mentioned by Theleekycauldron below in the Did you know nomination section? Ghazaalch (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because Global arrogance is a term like Great Satan and has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism which is a concept. There are also other reasons which I will write soon --Ghazaalch (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree its a term, and the article should make that clear.VR _talk 19:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vice regent. The problem was solved. I also nominated the article for DYK.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
There is some consensus that the article at its current state cannot run at DYK.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the United States has been described as "the capital of global arrogance" by Iranians, French, Germans, Japanese, Indonesians, Indians and Russians? Source: Ellwood, David (2016). The Shock of America: Europe and the Challenge of the Century. Oxford University Press. p. 455-456. ISBN 978-0-19-162679-1. Veseth, Michael (2002). The Rise of the Global Economy. p. 41. ISBN 9781579583699.

Created by Ghazaalch (talk). Self-nominated at 09:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC).

• @Ghazaalch: Hi there! Let's start with the good news: article is new enough and long enough, as well as adequately sourced, and a QPQ isn't needed. That's... unfortunately, all I've got visa-v good news. First, the article could use a small copyedit—mostly to deal with the contractions. Second, the quote in paragraph 3 of the Arguments section (and its associated blockquote) is pretty much presented without context—instead of being used sparsely and put in context the way other quotes in this article are. Third, and probably most importantly, the fact that a massive portion of this article is a line-up of people accusing the U.S. of global arrogance with barely any pushback seems to constitute an NPOV violation—I'm not quite sure that the consensus of reliable sources is the agreement that the U.S. is globally arrogant. Also, when we say the u.s. has been accused by *list of ethincities*, do we mean their governments or just random people/academics from those countries (I can't access the source)? Because if it's the second, then... yeah, I think the U.S. has been accused of war crimes by people in all of those countries—global arrogance can take a number in regards to U.S. transgressions abroad. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the source it doesn't seem to be saying governments, so its probably closer to the second. Are you saying that if its the second, then it is not 'hooky' enough?

The "Arguments" section does include some contrarian views (eg "the perception of the Western world exhibiting "global arrogance" is form of Occidentalism"). I also spent about half an hour searching for pushback but couldn't find much more pushback. These kinds of articles don't always have pushback. For example, there's no pushback at Great Satan. Nor is there any strong pushback recorded at Bomb Iran or Axis of evil.VR _talk 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Theleekycauldron. Could you take another look at the article an see if the first two issues you mentioned are resolved? About the third one Vice regent has already explained, but I should add that while writing this article I searched for "global arrogant", because this article is about the term. Off course many other writers do not think that US is arrogant, and so they don't use the term. But since this article is about the term, I should have listed the people who use it (first section), and the reason why they use it (second section).Ghazaalch (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm rather uncomfortable with this article too, the topic looks a bit ropey and the content is correspondingly lacking in focus. But certainly, I don't think that hook should be run. It's sourced solely to an opinion piece by Thomas Friedman, which in the original source reads: The Iranians aren't the only ones talking about America as "the capital of global arrogance". The French, Germans, Japanese, Indonesians, Indians and Russians also call us that now.

While that can certainly be read to mean that all those countries have literally used that term, it seems doubtful to me that all these countries would be adopting a slogan that evidently originated from Iran. IMO when Friedman said all these other countries "call us that now", he may simply have meant they describe the US as "arrogant". Regardless, it seems to me that the sourcing is just too thin to be used as the basis for a DYK hook. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Gatoclass, Theleekycauldron, and Vice regent:. Is the following good enough to run as the hook?

• ALT1: ... that the United States was first described as "the Capital of Global Arrogance" by Iranian students?

Leatherman, J.; Webber, J., eds. (2005). Charting Transnational Democracy: Beyond Global Arrogance. US: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781403981080. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine.VR _talk 05:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to bow out at this stage—there were some glaringly obvious problems to me, I wanted to point those out first, but it doesn't look like i can complete the review. My apologies! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but after further consideration, I just can't convince myself that this is an encyclopedic topic. It's just too vague, "global arrogance" could meaning anything and could be applied to anything. If we ran it on the main page, likely it would get earmarked for deletion, which would be an embarrassment to the project. I would suggest to the nominator that they consider copying the relevant content to Criticism of United States foreign policy, where it truly belongs - there is currently a section on "arrogance" there that is in need of expansion. The content would also get far more attention there - if it remains a separate article, likely nobody will find it even if it does survive AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: the article is about the use of a term "global arrogance" similar to terms like Great Satan, Axis of evil etc. The term is commonly used in Iran, with some evidence that it might be used outside of Iran too. But if you strongly believe that it should not exist, then perhaps start an AfD discussion as that will get more eyes on the article.VR _talk 17:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the other negative comments above. This topic seems invalid because it's a POV fork of articles such as hegemony and superpower. And focussing upon the particular phrase "global arrogance" is contrary to WP:DICDEF ("In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.") And focussing on the US is recentism when other great powers have been arrogant in history too. The sources supporting the topic seem weak in that they mostly don't use the phrase in their titles and so there seems to be a significant element of synthesis in pulling them together in this way. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)