Talk:Un-American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German equivalent of this ("undeutsch") is a Nazi term and so its use is a taboo since 1945. Seeing that inhabitants of other countries mean "un-(of our country)" as a pejorative without being sarcastic leaves a strange taste .... --84.115.129.76 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone in the U.S. say "Un-American" with a straight face. I've heard people accuse other Americans of lots of terrible thing, including treason, but never that. Apparently, people used to say it and mean it, otherwise there never would have been a HUAAC. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 09:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Linking to Uncyclopedia

It's ridiculous. Tell me one reason we should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later this term was used widely by supporters of the Iraq War.

That is complete opinion. It has been used by both sides.

[edit]

-Removed the following for simply being untrue 'America is the only nationality/country that can conjugate with the prefix Un-. (Example: There is unamerican but not unbritish, uncanadian, unmexican, unitalian)'

For example, the word unAustralian appears in both the Macquarie and Australian Oxford dictionaries meaning: "not in accordance with the characteristics…said to be typical of the Australian community".

Usually the word is used for fun, however, and not seriously.

[edit] Weasel Words

As much as I agree with the sentiment expressed in this article, and as much as it pains me to remove them, some weasel words have been edited out. Stuff like "heightened, fearmongering rhetoric" and "racist, genocide-endorsing" are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article as they are technicall opinions. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very POV

This entire article reads like a Canadian/European attack on the term. This entire article seems to be deligitimizing it's use. I am adding a NPOV tag. Honestly, it must of been an "Un-American" person who wrote thise. Pathetic. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is a rhetorical device, used by so many people to mean so many things that it scarcely means anything at all. Some of these uses are relatively official, some relatively unofficial. Sometimes the word is flung from the left, sometimes from the right. The article captures these facts pretty well. In other words, it seems quite balanced and not a POV at all. (Surely you don't think that this balanced approach constitutes a "delegitimizing" POV?!?) So, would you kindly provide some evidence that the article is biased? Otherwise, I move that the POV tag be removed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)