Talk:Ugly American (pejorative)

Science.

The claim "In the scientific fields, the term has been widely used by the international community for the failure by the US to adopt the metric system" Is not supported by evidence.

Of the three citations only one actually says "Ugly American" All three are US publications, not the international community. None are scientific publications, nor do any explicitly mention scientific measurement. The one which does mention "Ugly American" is a single college newspaper column, hardly a wide use or even notable.

Furthermore it's just plain wrong anyway because in the "scientific fields" the US does use the metric system. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner, as I have been in Singapore and only just returned home. Consequently, I have been checking Wikipedia only randomly while away. As you will appreciate, this article gets vandalised often. During one of my quick checks, I noticed a whole section had been removed by an anon user, so I reverted the change without giving it much thought. However, I have had time to look at your change and agree with what you are saying. However, some of the information is relevant, so I suggest we change the sub-heading to "Weights and Measures" and remove any reference to the scientific fields, but relate it to the fact that the US (generally) has not adopted the metric system. I can find accepted sources to support this. Let me know what you think and I'll make the appropraite changes in due course. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence that there's widespread and notable use of Ugly American to describe American's everyday use of Imperial measures then go for it. A single reference in a college newspaper column is not enough. Not every difference between the USA and the rest of the world is boils down to "Ugly American" Americans eat more blueberry pie than others. That doesn't raise eating blueberry pie to "Ugly American" behavior, it just means the world is a big place. 67.167.2.58 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This appears to be a highly specious claim, with no supporting evidence, from someone who has a private axe to grind against the United States' non-adoption of the metric system. I submit that it constitutes highly dubious original research and should be removed forthwith despite the link to supposed "evidence". Blue Bulldog (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A single reliable source that can unambiguously back up the point is ideal. This whole thing with tacking on extra sources, none of which satisfies as support for the claim being made in the article, just shows to me more evidence that the editor looking to keep it is POV pushing. I'll be removing the section outright within the next few days if nobody can come up with a decent source. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "weights & measures" and "border patrol" subsections. The external links given weren't supporting evidence of the term's use in those contexts. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of Photograph

The article starts off with a Cuban photograph of an American tourist, which is said to be a "1948" photograph of a 1950s "Batista-era" American tourist. Both dates appear to have a little documentation, but obviously they can't both be right and the jŭtaposition looks silly. --Haruo (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NYT “source”.

In this context almost every image is loaded with moral and political resonance. There's the Ugly American tourist in a Batista-era photograph by Constantino Arias: a fleshy, middle-aged guy comically posing in a droopy bathing suit and sombrero, wielding a liquor bottle in each hand.

That does not, in the least, support contemporaneous use of the term as a title in ‘48. Nothing else seems to either. Qwirkle (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Photograph

Qwirkle seems to have removed the photograph that formerly adorned this page on the basis that it wasn't titled "The Ugly American" as it was erroneously said to be. But it still seems like it's a good illustration for the concept and mightn't deserve its removal. ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Original research in Origin section

There really is a pejorative sense about the term Ugly American, and it probably deserves an article, but vast swaths of this article say nothing about the pejorative, and talk about the book instead, citing sources which say nothing about a pejorative sense at all, with a few exceptions here and there.

This article is based on a massive amount of original research, in particular in the § Origin section. Plenty of it is sourced to reliable sources, which have absolutely nothing to say about the use of the term Ugly American as a pejorative, which is what this article is about.

The Origins section is almost entirely OR; what this means is, that despite five reliable references, only one is usable all of others either talk about the contents of the *book* The Ugly American, or cite the book itself, or Mark Twain (another OR insertion by some editor). None of those four make any connection or assertion abut the pejorative term; only Stesney-2005 does that, and may be kept and used to source that fact. For the remaining content, the only authors who make the link to pejorative meaning, are the editors who added the information to the article. Most of the content in question would still be usable at the book article, because it talks about the book, but none of it is usable here, because none of them talk about the pejorative; that is only in the minds of editors here. Most of this material has been or will be removed. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. It is about the phrase “ugly american”, and ascribing current usage to Burdick and Lederer is grotesquely misleading and inaccurate. Qwirkle (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this dicussion, I am sorry. However, I hope my edits resolved the main issues of this discussion. I don't think adding a description of the main character in the book is helpful, particularly as he is not the example of the stereotypical ugly American. I think that is better discussed in the article about te book; this is about the pejorative. - DonCalo (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it should be covered in the book, and yes the book's title character is a quiet, unsung hero-type, and the very opposite of the pejorative sense of the term. Nevertheless, the book is very clearly the origin of the term, and that needs to be stated. I see nothing now in the article that mertis inclusion of an {{Accuracy}} tag, and I have removed it. That is for:

... a Wikipedia article... having content whose truth or factual nature is in dispute.

The article is not perfect, and I for one think the § Origin section is too long, but that's a judgment call, and a far different matter than saying something in the article is factually incorrect, which would be a WP:Verifiability policy violation and require immediate remedy, if true. If there is truly false information in the article, the please remove it and quote it here, so it can be discussed. Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course it’s factually incorrect. A reader coming to it in its current state would be left with at least two incorrect impressions. Qwirkle (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, all reliable sources refer to the book as the origin of the term. If you think that it is incorrect, please provide a reliable source that says so. Meanwhile, I have added another source that refers to the rapid expansion of the term to ill-mannered American tourism. - DonCalo (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That appears to suggest you have read neither the book nor several of the sources.

Let me quote from Foreign Affairs: “In the text, the titular ugly American is actually a kind, practical, wealthy engineer who is humble, speaks the local language, and works with people in their villages solving local problems — the exact opposite of what the term has come to mean.”

Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I couldn't agree more with your last comment. That said, after I asked about what you found inaccurate in the article, in your 20:39 comment you simply reiterated your assertion with nothing to back it up. So I am asking you again to quote the inaccurate part directly from the article, and paste it below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree that the main character in the book is exactly the opposite of the "ugly American", but about where that should be explained: here or in the article about the book. Maybe a solution could be to add a note in this article referring to the article in Foreign Affairs, if you would be so kind to provide a link. - DonCalo (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably both, but only briefly, and little should be said here about the book, as this article is not about the book. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't bother, I already found the link and added a note. I hope that solves the dispute so that everybody can move on? - DonCalo (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And by the way, I do think information about how well the book was read is relevant in this context, because it probably contributed to popularising the term. - DonCalo (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that note, that works for me. There is no doubt whatever that the book was the origin of the term, especially since the President bought 100 copies of it and sent it to every Senator, so that claim is accurate. I cut back the section to reduce the excess amount of coverage in the book that doesn't belong here. Anything removed that is relevant to the book article and not already covered there, can be moved there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Mathglot, if you can read the origin section, having read the book, and not see how it might be seen as inaccurate, I doubt I or anyone else would be able to help you there. Qwirkle (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-edit, Mathglot, but I restored some of the information that is relevant, as I just explaines above. - DonCalo (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

All of that stuff about how many weeks it was on the best-seller list, and the film is off-topic for this article, but could be moved to the book article. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I reject your unfounded claim, and won't ask you a third time to back it up, but thanks for playing. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in Origin section

This information (diff) is completely irrelevant to the topic, and should be removed. Nothing there has the slightest connection to the topic of this article, namely, the pejorative term ugly American, and is related solely to the book. It does not belong here. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree. Information on how well read the book was, that it was serialized in one of the most widely circulated and influential magazines at the time, and that it was made into a movie, show how rapidly the term was popularized, as is subsequently detailed in the next paragraph. - DonCalo (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No it does not, it shows how widely the book became popular; this is all relevant to the book, not to the pejorative term. Let's take it point by point; here are the statements in the disputed portion:

1. The novel spent 76 weeks on the best-seller list (reaching number 6 on the bestseller list in 1959), ...
2. ... and sold roughly five million copies; it was serialized by the Saturday Evening Post.[meyer][Hollander-1995]
3. In 1963, the book was made into a film with the same title directed by George Englund and starring Marlon Brando.[Crowther]

• Assertion #1 is true, but is not about the pejorative term that is the topic of this article.
• Assertion #2 is true, but is irrelevant to the topic.
• Assertion #3 is true but the film has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article.

None of it is relevant; all of it should be removed. Notably, the NYT article (Meyer-2009) *does* talk about the pejorative sense, but that portion of the article was not used! I think the main problem here, is that you are conflating the popularity of the book, which is one thing, with the meaning and popularity of the pejorative term, which is completely different. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Where you say that the book and film

show how rapidly the term was popularized

that's where you go wrong. It is *not* the pejorative term that was popularized by the book and the film. The burden of proof to include material in an article is on the person that wants to include it. Show me some sources that say the book or the film or the popularity of either one introduced the pejorative term. If you cannot, it must be removed. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You really have a strange kind of reasoning. The book (and later the film) introduced the term for a phenomenon that was already existing (as I explain in the following sections) and the fact that the book was popular and was also published in a serialized series in a well-read magazine can only have contributed to the rapid expansion of the term for what was already a well-known phenomenon. How else can the pejorative term become popular? It first has to be introduced and become known among te general public, before it becomes an accepted term. But I suspect you will not agree, so let's see what other contributors have to say. Meanwhile I will look for relevant sources for what is common sense logic. - DonCalo (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally understand why you think I have a strange kind of reasoning, because apparently you think the term existed as a pejorative before the book was written, and if that were true, you would be right. But it did not; the book came first, then for a little while the term had no meaning other than the title of a widely read book, and then the pejorative sense of the word came about and became popular and then took over, pushing out the original meaning of the term in a process that is even studied as a concept in sociolinguistics, and called pejoration. The book came first, then the pejorative term came later. Talking about how many weeks the book was on the best-seller list has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the term. This is not a chicken-and-egg situation; we know which one came first here. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not distort what I am saying. I did not say that the term existed before the book, but the phenomenon did. In a sense you could say that the phenomenon was waiting for a term to describe it, and the Ugly American became that term. Because of the book, the serialized edition etc., everything I already explained. But we could for instance quote the Foreign Affairs article to make it even more clear:

1. The popular expression emerged from the title of a novel published 60 years ago. It caused a sensation, the way that few books have in U.S. history.
2. The book, by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick, was a national best seller and sold more than 4 million copies. OK, 5 million according to the New York Times article, but that can be nuanced.
3. At the time, it seemed as though almost all of America’s educated set had read the novel.

I am sure I can find plenty more quotes, but does this satisfy your need for corroboration? - DonCalo (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Only #1 is needed and I am fiine with it; the rest are superfluous and irrelevant. This article is not about some phenomenon that you claim already existed before; maybe it did, and maybe it didn't; at this point, that seems to be a baseless claim, and original research on your part. But in any case, per WP:AT this article is about a specific, perjorative term that is two words long, starts with ugly and ends with American, and the content of the article should match the title. I have no problem with you writing a new article about Negative stereotypes about American tourists in the 1950s, but per WP:AT, *this* article is not that one. Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

In the next section I quote historian Harvey Levenstein as saying that in the 1920s that "What would later be called 'the Ugly American' phenomenon had reared its head". This is not original research on my part, but a respected historian saying so. I really am starting to dislike your continuous false accusation and would appreciate you would discontinue doing so. Here is quote that corrobarates the link of the book and the popularization of the term:

1. In 1958, when the bestseller The Ugly American appeared, Kennedy (who was then a senator) liked it so much that he took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, identifying it as a compelling critique of “the Americans who go overseas for the various governmental agencies, their activities abroad, and the policies they are entrusted to carry out.” Subsequently, he sent a copy of the novel to every member of the Senate, as a cautionary tale against negative stereotypes.

DonCalo (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Remember that the ugly American in the book was the quiet, culturally sensitive, uneffacing, hero, Homer the engineer. Your bolded term about the negative stereotype in the quotation does *not* refer to Homer, the ugly American, it refers to the bumbling, insensitive diplomats from the book. They were not the ugly Americans, Homer the hero was. So, you have it backwards. The pejorative term refers to loud, boorish American tourists around Europe and elsewhere, kind of similar to the villains of the book, the diplomats. The pejorative term ugly American does not refer to the ugly American hero in the book, who is the opposite of the pejorative term's meaning. As for Levenstein, he underlines the point that the term did not exist in the 1920s, it only came into being later after the book made the expression well known.

The title of the article *must* match the content, per WP:Article title policy. I support you adding the Levenstein quote to an article about the phenomenon Negative stereotypes about American tourists 1920s – 1950s, and you have backing for that; but this article is not about that, it is about a pejorative term that did not exist before the book did, and the content must comply to this article about an expression. I think there may also be a Use–mention distinction issue going on here, as part of the problem. This term is a pejoration of the title of a popular 1958 book, short and simple; it has nothing to do with the 1920s. Unless, of course, you have a source that says that it does. But I can't prove a negative, of course, and the of proof is on you to demonstrate the source that backs you up. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired about this. Again you twist the meaning what I said: I did not say Homer was the stereotypical Ugly American. To the contrary, that was the whole point of the previous discussion and I added the quote from Foreign Affairs that "the titular ugly American is actually a kind, practical, wealthy engineer who is humble, speaks the local language, and works with people in their villages solving local problems — the exact opposite of what the term has come to mean."

My point with quoting Levenstein was that the term is applied retroactively to describe the phenomenon. And he is not the only one. Historian Simon Schama even says: "By the end of the nineteenth century, the stereotype of the ugly American - voracious, preachy, mercenary, and bombastically chauvinist - was firmly in place in Europe." See Simon Schama, 'The Unloved American,' The New Yorker, 3 March 2003.

I am not going to write a new article, because this all about the pejorative term "Ugly American" and it belongs here.

The coming days I will not be active on Wikipedia because of outside commitments and I would appreciate if we could leave thing as they are right now, to continue the discussion and probably ask for mediation. - DonCalo (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Reiterating my edit comment that most or all of what was added to the "Origin" section in the last day or so is entirely irrelevant to this article. Also noting that a lot of seems to be a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, using reliable sources but framing those sources to make an argument that the sources do not. I may start trimming it at some point if needed, but having read through those changes along with this extensive talk discussion has now exceeded the amount of time that I want to devote to a WP article tonight. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)