Talk:Anglosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Quebec 2 Six Countries or Five? 3 General 4 What is the Anglosphere, exactly? 5 'Bonding qualities'? 6 White Commonwealth? 7 NOPV 8 I don't agree 9 What about smaller countries? 10 The UK, Ireland, and the 'Continent' 10.1 Seven core countries? 11 Sprachraum 12 Joe Katzmann edits 13 Core States 14 Including South Africa? 15 Cleanup 16 Incorrect statement 17 Autonomists... 18 Changes made 28-Aug-2006 19 What About India? 20 Changes made 14-Sep-2006 21 Neal Stephenson's meaning 22 Why no Jamaica? 23 belize 24 Ancestry 25 Music and Anglosphere#Anglosphere co-operation and common ground 26 All of the US 27 Canada an Outlier? 28 Ethnicities 29 Cultural shift 30 Migration 31 does it exist? 32 British Israelitism 33 English speaking world 34 South African & the Map 35 Quebec 36 English Speaking Word (part 2) 37 Requested move 37.1 Survey 37.2 Discussion 38 HONG KONG 39 Realists.... 40 Original research 41 metric system 42 Nunavut 43 Two maps better than one? 44 Exclusive "adoption"/nordic countries 45 Americanism 46 Hitchens 47 Original Research 48 Notability and POV 49 Use of term "British Isles" 50 Exclusion of Quebec from maps 51 Maps & Lead

[edit] Quebec

Should Quebec be included as part of the Anglo Sphere? Quebec itself has a large anglo neighbourhood centred primarily in Montreal, about 400,000 but otherwise is a francophone territory - part of the 'francosphere'

Quebec is still part of Canada. The majority of Canada's population speaks English. 'Nuff said. ~ Maximilli, 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, that's an oversimplified argument. Still holds water, though...

I strongly disagree! Calling Quebec part of the Anglosphere seems quite misleading. It is linked to the UK through Canda's national government but that's it. It is culutrally and linguistically very different and prides itself in being Franco not Anglophone. It should, like parts of the US, be colored in two colors (semi-included). Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously uninformed or a QC sovereignist. Actually the province of Quebec has a strong and ancient anglo community as well as indigenous community. Who gives a crap if they "pride themselves" on being franco. Who exactly? CJ DUB 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much any social scientist! Current culture and identity are far more important than having a historic connection to the Anglosphere. Most of QC has chosen to be franco - any social scientists will tell you that culture/ethnicity is a learned social construct, not inherited ("in the blood"). An ethnic group is by definition a group with a common identity. The fact that QCs "'pride themselves' on being franco" is part of what makes them a franco ethnic group. Signature^brendel 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. Be civil. Signature^brendel 06:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

About a tenth of Quebec's population speaks English as its native language. Even if Quebec were independent, its situation would be similar to that of South Africa: it would be a country with an English-speaking minority. The difference might be that in South Africa, English is probably used in the majority of communication between people belonging to different linguistic groups, whereas French probably predominates in this role in Quebec. Joeldl (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Countries or Five?

The definition at the top of the page includes Ireland, but in a number of places further down in the article, Ireland is implicitly excluded, or there is a reference to FIVE countries... -- AnonMoos

I think the first paragraph refers to Ireland as a "prospective" member, although I don't think that word is quite apt (since it implies movement toward "full membership," which does not appear applicable in this case). Certainly the criteria of a "majority Protestant Christian" population does not apply to the Republic of Ireland (the significant Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, etc. minorities notwithstanding); and the RoI is further distanced by the fact that it maintains an official policy of military neutrality (whereas the UK, Australia, NZ, US, and Canada more frequently perform cooperative military operations in foreign countries). —Ryanaxp 16:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the page was as I described it from "20:11, 15 July 2005 " to "03:26, 5 August 2005", as you can see in the article changelog. I agree with you that "prospective" is inadequate to describe Ireland -- "partial membership" might be more appropriate... -- AnonMoos

Hopefully I clarified things... Pared the six nation "bloc" down to five, since it looked like we plain couldn't count, and reworked "'prospective members'" to "partial or arguable members." Incidentally, should we be using the term "bloc" at all? A couple paragraphs down it's noted that the Anglosphere *cannot* be called a bloc. Scare quotes or no, they look a little odd. --Nentuaby

[edit] General

Strange there is no discussion of the history points. For example, the English hace arguably been ruled by no one else but foreigners since 1066!

Charles Matthews 07:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is the perspective that pre 1006 England was Anglo-Saxon and that "The English" defines the derivative of a merged Anglo-Norman nation. Dainamo 01:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Important article, but it really needs a huge clear-up

--Dumbo1 02:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of drastic edit of this page: This article clearly violated the NPoV. Most of it amounted to a defence of the idea that Anglo culture is superior to other cultures; it was therefore ethnocentric and non-neutral by definition. Anyone familiar with recent debates in Britain about the European Union will also recognise several of the deleted paragraphs (e.g. the one about the euro) as typical tabloid-style arguments for why Britain should withdraw from the European Union. This is political propaganda that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. I have therefore deleted everything after the second paragraph.

Beroul 10:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It may not have been perfect; but in fact there was plenty of nuance in the discussions of the historical and political points. I'm reverting this. Please make changes piecemeal, instead of cutting the article in this way.

By the way, the 'ethnocentrism' argument is very poor. You yourself are arguing in terms of an 'Anglo' culture which is the whole premise.

Charles Matthews 12:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of editing on this now. I think it still needs to get clear to what extent 'Anglosphere' is anti-EU talk. Charles Matthews 15:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely a big improvement. I think my comment about 'Anglosphere' being used by some of its proponents as ethnocentric stands; James C. Bennett and the Anglosphere Society seem pretty clearly to be promoting the idea of Anglo culture as superior to others, and that fits the definition of ethnocentrism. 'Ethnocentrism' is not merely an Anglo concept; the same word is used in French (éthnocentrisme), Italian (etnocentrismo) and Spanish (also etnocentrismo), and no doubt other European languages as well. In pointing out this ethnocentrism, I'm not arguing solely 'in terms of an Anglo culture'. For example, the deleted paragraph about the euro, which asserted that Europeans are inclined to accept the euro because of some collective memory of a common currency that some of them had centuries ago, was just silly. I'm sure hardly anyone in France has heard of such a thing, and in any case 80 percent of French people continue to think in francs rather than in euros. But this doesn't stop them from being in favour of European integration. Rather, I suspect that sentimentality about banknotes is a phenomenon peculiar to British nationalism, and would strike most French people (and most Americans) as strange.

I have revised the section on Anglo-European relations to reflect what I think is a more pertinent view of Anglo-French rivalry and mutual influence.

Beroul 02:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK - Bennett has an agenda, no question. The currency business was very questionable (aren't dollars Dutch, anyway? - an aside). Charles Matthews 09:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the term "journalist" with regard to James C. Bennett. It is true that he used to write a column distributed through United Press International (UPI), but that no more makes him a journalist than publication of "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" made Winston Churchill an historian. Bennett is more of an entrepreneur than anything else, but it seems unnecessary and potentially confusing to label him in any way - certainly to mislabel him as a journalist.

Peter Saint-Andre 18:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Columnist' would be more accurate. I think it is better to identify him in such a way - it explains that he is not a historian. Charles Matthews 19:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He had a column for a few years -- does that make him a columnist? Plenty of people have columns -- for example, an economist like Paul Krugman writes for the New York Times. Does that make him a columnist, or an economist, or an economist with a column? As far as I can ascertain (based on reading Bennett's book and the website of the Anglosphere Institute), Bennett is not primarily a columnist any more than Krugman is a primarily a columnist.

Peter Saint-Andre 00:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Anglosphere, exactly?

This article reads like a big chunk was deleted from it. Is the Anglosphere a proposed entity? Does it already exist? If so, what does it do, or what would it do? The article spends all this time talking about criticism without really explaining what it actually is.

If you like, it is a debating topic in international relations. The article has not been heavily cut, but has been re-arranged, so that the rather tendentious historical argument that such an entity exists is now later. It was once earlier, but then read like POV advocacy. So, it does all seem to need working on. Charles Matthews 09:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the definition of Anglosphere is simply those countries and territories where the English language is the primary language, then the map should be changed so that Ireland and the Falklands are added and Puerto Rico is excluded. Possibly some Caribbean countries where some form of English is the language used by the majority could also be included. --Big Adamsky 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglosphere is a racist agenda. This article has been whitewashed to make the idea look sort of atractive.--tequendamia 02:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Its employment has been criticised, as an obvious and divisive application of ethnocentrism - that's a whitewash? Charles Matthews 09:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, if Anglosphere is defined as per article map, what name(s) are the other nations defined as? This article is rather incomplete; albeit adding such info makes it out of scope. (Never heard of such classification, mind you.) Mdoc7 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Bonding qualities'?

Sorry, really no qualities there. The USA has a British-derived legal system, but nothing like a British political system. Canada is not a supporter of the USA in Iraq, friend though it may be. And so on.

We really have to do this the encyclopedic way. We can't present a selective view, on its own. We can say 'advocates point out ... '; as long as we don't just forget the other side of the argument. If it comes down just to finding reasons why the USA and Australia are natural allies - well, that article would not be worth having in Wikipedia, under this title anyway.

Charles Matthews 21:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Globalisation has tended to increase the influence of American culture in many countries"

If this is true, shouldn't it be spelled "Globalization"? --MGS 03:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why, exactly? What on Earth is the difference in using American and British spellings on Wikipedia? --Locuteh 19:29, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

[edit] White Commonwealth?

I see that the White Commonwealth forwards into here. I feel that this is wrong, since the White Commonwealth has always excluded the USA, which is part of the Anglosphere... MacRusgail 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Yes, that's not an appropriate redirect. Charles Matthews 20:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NOPV

There has been an increase in centralised state control in the UK, examples being the National Curriculum, and the proposed introduction of identity cards in the UK (actually a part of EU-wide security-cooperation).

I don't think ID cards are part of a "EU-wide security-cooperation", because neither the Netherlands and Ireland has ID cards and has no plans to intoduce them. 159753 19:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is certainly not the motivation for the proposals to introduce ID cards, and have amended the article to remove this reference.

[edit] I don't agree

"The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all former colonies of the United Kingdom, and were settled by migrants from the United Kingdom."

Canada wasn't settled by British immigrants. It was in fact settled by Frenchmen. I don't know who wrote this, but that guy isn't very documented.

Um hello? Canada was not ONLY settled by Frenchmen.. More Canadians are of British stock than French.. Vlag (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

And the US by Dutch, French, Spanish. It doesn't mean exclusively, here. Charles Matthews 08:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some nations adopt the English language more readily than others. The Phillipines, for example, despite a comparatively short period of Anglophone occupation, soon boasted the third largest English-speaking population in the world, following the India blueprint in many respects.

[edit] What about smaller countries?

A good part of the Caribbean meets all the qualifications of Anglosphere membership except ethnicity. If this is supposed to be about linguistic, cultural, and historic ties then why is there no mention of Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, etc.? Some Pacific island nations could be called former United States colonies. Could the concept extend to Palau? Durova 15:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The UK, Ireland, and the 'Continent'

Ireland is not and has never been considered a part of the european 'continent' in the context discussed by the article with reference to shared culture etc. This should hardly be surprising given the shared history of the ROI and UK as they once formed a single nation and have centuries of shared history as well as a shared common language and culture.An Siarach

It is ridiculous for Ireland not to be counted as a primary country in the Anglosphere. Evertype 15:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. An Siarach

Others would argue that Ireland has more in common with the other Catholic countries in Europe; that it has more in common with other small and recently independent states such as Norway and Finland; that it (or both it and the UK) has more in common with other NW European countries than with eastern or southern European countries let alone with the US. All these classifications depend to a large extent on what you're looking at. The idea of the "Anglosphere" selects characteristics that appeal to its inventors and proponents in order to argue a particular ideological point: that all these countries are part of one distinct political and civilisational area and should seek closer political collaboration. And of course, all the many factors which argue against this are ignored. Palmiro | Talk 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A hell of a lot of Irish emigration has been to English speaking countries such as the USA, Canada, Newfoundland (while a separate entity), Scotland, England, Australia etc. Also, whether we like it or not, the BBC and ITV are watched in large chunks of the republic, and so is Sky, in addition to RTE. Even the Republican movement, which seeks to revive the Irish language amongst other things, has received a lot of money from New York, Boston and London.

In reply to An Siarach's point, I would differentiate between the physical continent of Europe, and the cultural sphere of Europe. --MacRusgail 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven core countries?

I somewhat agree with this: according to the Anglosphere Institute (wikified):

The Anglosphere, as a network civilization ... without a corresponding political form, has necessarily imprecise boundaries. Geographically, the densest nodes of the Anglosphere are found in the United States and the United Kingdom, while Anglophone regions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa are powerful and populous outliers. The educated English-speaking populations of the Caribbean, Oceania, Africa and India pertain to the Anglosphere to various degrees.

The Philippines too, is in the outlying sphere.. It has a considerably larger population (more than 2x) compared to South Africa and as many English speakers (as a first, second, third, et cetera language) as that country. Sheesh.Vlag (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

Seven 'core' countries, by my count: two nodes, five "outliers". If there are no objections, I'll update the text and map appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds to me more like two core countries and five "outliers". As a more general point, this is someone else's (ideologicaly-defined) political concept, and it's not up to us to fiddle about with the Wikipedia description of it to bring it into closer harmony with reality. Palmiro | Talk 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure; I'll make editions that embrace that. However, this begs the question of how and why the Wikipedia description/definition arose in the first place; are there any citations regarding just the five? It was up to someone or few to agree on the prior def, and was recently changed. Myself included, prior assertions range from 2, 5, 6, 7 countries without being WP:verifiable. If not, on the contrary: we're precisely the ones that should fiddle with the article (who else?), citing and verify according to Wp policies and procedures (as done above). E Pluribus Anthony 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To that end, I found this useful tidbit – indeed, there are various definitions (one of which is above) and all of these should be embraced and reconciled in the article. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 18:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sprachraum

Is the term really "often used more broadly to describe the English Sprachraum"? My impression is that the term is not often used at all, let alone in this sense, that it's rather a rarity. Any comments? Palmiro | Talk 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Before its inclusion in the article, I've never heard of the term ... strange, I know! :) Based on the article, though, it does seem appropriate. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 19:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, in case that wasn't clear the term I was referring to as not being commonly used at all was "Anglosphere", not Sprachraum. My quibble is with the word often, not with the inclusion of the reference to the latter. Palmiro | Talk 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah; I see. Well, a quick search indicates some 283,000 online mentions of "Anglosphere" while almost four times as many for "Sprachraum", so the prevalence of the latter online is confirmed. That sentence otherwise reads fine; perhaps a rephrase? E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Katzmann edits

I have reverted the division of the page (making Anglosphere for 'proponents', and Anglosphere Criticisms) as an obvious negative in terms of POV. I don't see that we should include an inline line link to Katmann's own blog as an authority on India-US relations. And I think the bit about Indian Nobels in literature is misleading: Naipaul is a Caribbean author settled in the UK. Charles Matthews 10:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me! As well, I was starting to wonder why almost everything was dewikified and reorganised with little rhyme or reason. :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core States

-should it be noted that although Canada is a satellite state of the U.S, it's economy is larger than that of Australia. You made it seem as if the core states are more powerful than any of the satellite states.

[edit] Including South Africa?

As an American, I'm most grateful for South Africa sending Charlize Theron our way, not to mention providing one of the greatest moral exemplars of the 20th Century , but I don't really feel the same ties with SA that I do with the UK, Canada, et al. On the other hand, it seems like the key link in the Anglosphere concept is Britain and not the US (a painful admission, to be sure) and obviously Britain and SA have much stronger links. So... does that mean SA belongs while other ex-colonies like India do not? To be clear, I'm not arguing against inclusion, but the article doesn't make the case for it beyond a single quote. It appears to have popped into the article w/o comment, perhaps as a counterweight to the argument that the Anglosphere concept is racist. -Bert 171.159.64.10 04:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really convincing that South Africa would be in, if Ireland is not. Of course the whole thing is flimsy as an intellectual exercise, just a fairly useful way of organising some debates. Charles Matthews 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 'Anglosphere' is not really a clean cut concept, I'm sure. The attempts to tack South Africa and Ireland in are sort of pushing the bounds of the idea, no doubt. Roughly speaking, try using the sentence "Country X goes to war against Country Y" with any of the five "real" members of the Anglosphere as country X and country Y, it's pretty much farcicle, whereas says "Canada goes to war against Denmark" sounds highly unlikely, but its somehow different. WilyD 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include South Africa in the restricted definition, since while English is an official language (one of 11) and I assume important for business and government the number of people who would speak it as a primary language must be quite low. Whereas Ireland I'd suspect is the totally different, as far as I can tell most people speak English as their first language despite the significant efforts devoted towards promotion/restoration of Irish Gaelic. Juan IncognitoJuan Incognito

South Africa's relationship with the UK has varied throughout the years. Broadly speaking, from 1900 to 1948 SA was as politically close to the UK as any of the 'White Commonwealth' such as Australia or Canada. After 1948, SA government changed hands; a much less UK/Commonwealth oriented policy followed. At this time the policies of apartheid were brought into operation, eventually leading to South African isolation. Since multi racial elections in 1994 I don't think we can really say that relations have gone back to the pre 1948 levels of closeness.

Xdamr 19:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right - including South Africa in this concept is pretty dubious. The Anglosphere really is essentially Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, USA. Other countries probly could join but choose not to, such as Ireland. There may be other secret members, I'm not sure - for instance, is Jersey a member of the Anglosphere? I have no idea ... WilyD 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

??? Are you being funny? Secret members? The Anglosphere is no club or actual organization. It is only a culutural concept, an imagined idea.Vlag (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

I think that it's important to realise here that the 'Anglosphere' is not a concept which necessarily exists — it is not a 'club' like the European Union or even the Commonwealth. Governments have not 'chosen' to be part of the Anglosphere. It simply refers to a certain ideology — that these five, six or seven countries represent one civilisational area and should seek closer collaboration. Of course, life in Ireland is very very similar to life in Britain — essentially people speak the same language, live in the same types of houses in the same types of towns and villages, go to the same types of pubs, eat the same types of food and to a great extent behave in a very similar way. If we see the 'Anglosphere' as a cultural union linked to England, I'd say that Ireland has a more valid claim to 'membership' than the United States does.

hartlandcat 16:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

South Africa has contributed a number of Authors, Actors, and Musicians to the the Anglosphere Culture. Two major ones have been J.R.R. Tolkien, and Musician Dave Matthews.

To my mind, the reason South Africa is part of the Anglosphere but India isn't is that South Africa, unlike India, has a significant population of monoglot English speakers. Although most educated Indians can speak English quite fluently, it's actually fairly rare in India for someone to speak only English. In South Africa, on the other hand, it isn't; and that's what puts SA together with the UK, Ireland, Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. To look at it a different way, what proportion of South Africans are likely to speak English to their own mother or grandmother? What proportion of Indians are? Angr 12:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Only 39.3% of White South Africans speak English. And White South Africans make up only 9.6%. South Africa shouldn't even be there. And India shouldn't either. Only the countries where peoples mother tougues are English should be there. --Greasysteve13 05:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of white South Africans, including Afrikaans mother tongue speakers, have headed to the UK for employment. Also, a lot of the non-white population speaks English to some degree. It is the dominant language in South Africa, despite attempts to make Afrikaans or Zulu tongues such. If you want a prime example of South Africa's Anglosphere tendencies, have a look at sport. Rugby and cricket are highly successful there (soccer too - although as a universal sport, it doesn't count so much).--MacRusgail 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. English's position in South Africa makes it a neutral choice, as opposed to Afrikaans or Zulu, just as it is in India, as opposed to Hindi.

• I'm not sure it's contraversial that South Africa has a lot of English speakers, or migrants to the UK (Canada too, maybe Australia as well?) Being a member of the Anglosphere is not about language - despite what the article says, for instance, there's absolutely no way Ireland's a member. Or say, Jamaica, and yet both those countries speak English. The truth is really at UKUSA, if you care. WilyD 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"there's absolutely no way Ireland's a member. Or say, Jamaica, and yet both those countries speak English." - According to who? Apart from a third or so of Ireland under British rule, the colonial influence on the Republic, and the fact that many Irish read/view foreign English language media (especially English and American) suggests that they are actually quite close culturally. I realise that many identify with a Gaelic identity, in sports and language, but the opposite tendency is still there. --MacRusgail 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ireland IS in the Anglosphere. And stop saying "member"!! It isn't like there was a conference on who joined and who didn't. The Anglosphere is only a concept! English IS the first language of the MAJORITY of Irish people, whether they admit to it or not. The official status of the Irish language is almost a joke, judging from the real status quo in Ireland. A huge sector of the Irish population has already been Anglicized and the only reason why many people refuse to say that it is so and saying things like "No way is Ireland a 'member' of the Anglosphere.." is because many Irish do not want to admit that their culture is already heavily 'Anglo'. Besides the fact that English is THE prevailing language in Ireland, there are many aspects of life that back up what I'm trying to explain such as the huge popularity of English club football, British popular music, British shows, British comedy, British TV and so many other cultural aspects that undoubtedly make Ireland a valid part of the Anglosphere.Vlag (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

Including SA in the Anglosphere means also including the Philippines in the 'sphere.. I have never understood why it is so commonly said that SA is in it while the Philippines is not. SA and the Philippines are in very similar situations. Both are multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, non-white majority, tiny white minority and both are developing countries. SA was British, the Philippines was American.. Now if SA was to be in the Anglosphere, then there is no reason in the world why Philippines shouldn't be in the 'sphere as well. The reasons being: Philippines population is a bit over twice the size of SA's. I do not know the poverty levels in SA (but I'm pretty sure it's high) but 40% of Filipinos are in poverty. Those who do not get education in the Philippines will likely not get any fluency or satisfactory knowledge of English and those who do not get education are mostly the poor. (Note: English proficiency is not exclusively amongst the middle and upper classes of the Philippines) That leaves at least 60% of the Philippine population with the capability to communicate in varying degrees of English. English is an official language, and one can get by in that country with only the English language because everyone will be able to understand you..(well, Standard American to be more precise).. Most of Philippine TV is in English and Hollywood or other English-language movies are not dubbed into the vernacular tongues because people don't need it to be (and because it is expected to be understood). Compare those facts with SA. A population of circa 40 million, huge poverty which means a lot of people will not have the ability to speak English. (Apart from the other South Africans not categorized previously) this leaves the White population at around 10% of SA or about 4.5 million people. Only 30-40% of the White pop. speak English as their mother tongue. So it would be considerably less than 40 million South Africans who can speak English and more in the Philippines would be able to speak it - at least in the 40 million mark. Thus, it does not take a genius to figure out that the validity of the Philippines belonging to the 'sphere is in fact more stronger than SA's.. That's if we're NOT going by the argument that SA's White population is larger and consists mainly of Anglo-Saxon and or Germanic stock (as opposed to the Philippines' White minority of mainly Iberian heritage). If we are, then we're going by the concept of the Anglosphere in terms of race, and not the English language..Vlag (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

I'm sorry, but are you claiming that the Philippines have a larger population speaking English as their first language than does South Africa? My impression was that few Filipinos learned English before other languages.

[edit] Cleanup

I did some pruning on the article - there were some needlessly rambling sections that seemed like evidence of conflicts between the pro- and anti-anglosphere sides in the debate. Let me know if you disagreed with any of my changes. Korny O'Near 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect statement

From the article:

Stars such as Russell Crowe (New Zealand) and Nicole Kidman (Australia) often appear to transcend their birth nationalities, and instead adopt a cross-cultural identity that have earned them great popularity with fans of all five --205.234.33.154 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)--205.234.33.154 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)--205.234.33.154 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Nicole Kidman was born in Hawaii. And while I'm no pop-culture expert I don't think Crowe's identity is cross-cultural. His larrikin attitude is much more New Zealand/Australia than US of A.

Uh there IS a difference between being born somewhere and growing up somewhere.. If you were born on a cargo ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in international waters, does that make you a what? A Pacifican? An 'Internationalese'? No. It is where you have grown up or where you developed your sense of 'belongingness'.Vlag (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

I haven't corrected the article, just made this entry here. Oska 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomists...

Would it be out of the question to point out here that, while America and England have diverged, the power of the American economy in recent decades has resulted in American films becoming the most widely watched, and so Anglophones in general tend to show a more narrow-minded view toward non-English-language films as a result, even though so many are not American? It is perfectly clear that this is a result of their speaking English; other places (mainland western Europe, for example) are clearly distinct. I cannot cite a specifc source other than Bey Logan's commentary on the UK/Ireland DVD of The Warrior, but it is perfectly obvious - I'm only asking because I think someone could remove it if I do so unilaterally. The same could be said of literature - Americans will read Treasure Island (or the works of Shakespeare), because it was originally written in English, where they would not read a more "American" translation of The Tale of Genji or The Three Musketeers. Having lived out the best part of eighteen years in the Republic of Ireland (where most of our media is from the UK, and clearly American-influenced), and struggling to appreciate things created outside the Anglosphere, I feel quite qualified to make this statement. elvenscout742 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made 28-Aug-2006

I've revised the "External links" section:

• Put the links into a rough general-to-particular order
• Removed link to http://www.wordspy.com/words/Anglosphere.asp (because all its content seens to already be in our article)
• Corrected the description of the link to http://www.anglospherechallenge.com/ — it is not an online book, as even a cursory glance at that webpage would have shown
• Added link to Albion's Seedlings
• Copyedited descriptions of other links

I've also added a mention of Bennett's book to the second paragraph. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem - who apart from Bennett says he is a 'leading advocate'? He is a promoter, has an Institute, and so on. But he has no particular international relations credentials, has he? What makes him more important here than some of the other names? Charles Matthews 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About India?

The main thing holding this Anglosphere concept together seems to be the English language (despite national variations).

As many Indians living in New Zealand have reminded me, the most populous english-speaking country is India. Yet, somehow, the status of India has got less attention than that of Quebec, even though Quebec is far less significant.

The picture, I feel, needs to be changed. Only white/european countries are represented, which makes the Anglosphere is nothing but a racist concept.

I think if one is to take this article seriously, there needs to be more thought put into which countries do in fact speak English rather than the few that are mentioned here. Another unlikely candidate for inclusion into the 'Anglosphere' is the netherlands. A very large segment (over 50%) of the population there can speak English.

I disagree with your over-emphasis of the language element. It is a flawed basis to base the concept on; the Netherlands is most certainly not, and has never been accepted as, a part of the Anglosphere, despite widespread knowledge of English. There is substantial cultural homogoneity and interchange between the UK, Canada, US, Australia, etc - principally stemming from their common Anglo-saxon (for want of a better term) basis. India might be broadly English-speaking, but it is not Anglo-saxon, nor does it enjoy the same degree of political support and integration as these others. That is the rationale for its exclusion.

Regardless, this page presents an explanation of a concept which has been evolved by others. Whether the concept of the Anglosphere is a useful one or not is a matter which we can debate. But so long as this article summarises the position accurately and with NPOV then it can be taken seriously. It is one's own choice whether one takes the concept seriously.

Xdamr^talk 10:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Albion's Seedling bloggers have often written about India. Jim Bennett and co. don't regard the Anglosphere as a hard-and-fast group where nations are either in or out, but as a network in which some nations are closer to the center than others, and the regard India, Singapore and some other Asian nations as quite 'Anglosphere-ish' (to coin a really ugly word). On India, see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. They've also written a little about the Netherlands: eg., [7], [8]. See also [9]. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can speak english is very different from always speaks english. The reason Quebec gets so much attention here is because in spite of being in Canada, it's only very marginally in the anglosphere (if at all). As much as I hate to say it, the anglosphere isn't racist at all, it's just linguist- because if someone only speaks english, you know what they're up to. It's a distrust of foreign people, but exclusively on their language (or possibly culture, but not race). But Indians speak stacks of other languages, which is a major drawback to getting the trust of the Anglosphere. WilyD 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• A countries primary language directly influences it's cultural sphere. If and when English becomes the primary spoken language of India, it's culture would be in the Anglosphere. Even now it's Government, Military, Architecture, and other parts of society are distinctly British influenced.Hamiltonl 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above in the section about South Africa. To my mind, what keeps India out of the Anglosphere is the very low number of monoglot English speakers, or of people likely to speak English to their own mother or grandmother. English is widely spoken in India, but it's widely spoken as a second language, as the language of education. It's not very common as the language of the kitchen or the language of people who can speak no language other their own native language. In the seven Anglosphere countries, it is. Angr 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made 14-Sep-2006

I've just reorganised the lede and the next two sections, one of which is now gone. I added some stuff, but mostly moved existing text around. Any comments, fixes or improvements please?

This article still needs some work. It's repetitive, and contains lots of unsourced claims. (I've only added 3 "citation needed" markers so far, but I suspect there are dozens more to come.) Of course, one of the problems is that we are covering three things in one article: the basic idea of the Anglosphere, the Bennett/Steyn/blogosphere version of the concept, and the somewhat negative reaction to their concept from the academic establishment. Maybe trying to differentiate between these would help?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that leading off with the Bennett concept is going to make it extremely hard to get the article back into shape. Charles Matthews 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suprised that someone who has edited Wikipedia in ways that seem intended to discredit Bennett and Steyn would feel compelled to say that. CWC(talk) 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, that is an actual personal attack. What is more, ad hominem is a fallacy. So please consider that you have not answered my point.

I have no idea why you think I have tried to 'discredit' Bennett; I know what you have said to me elsewhere about Steyn, and I think you have no basis for rejecting the good faith of what I said to you then. While I think your critical attention to articles here can be a force for good, such comments do you no credit, as well as being way beyond the bounds of policy. Charles Matthews 13:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Stephenson's meaning

As the article says, the word "anglosphere" was coined by Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age, a SF novel set in the not-too-distant future. Its setting includes an artificial island named Atlantis, near Shanghai; the inhabitants of that island are called "Atlantans". As a recently-removed paragraph said:

Neal Stephenson originally used the term to describe fictional Atlantans who, when immigrating to London, were "poor in equity but rich in expectations".

A major theme of the novel is the idea that some cultures are naturally superior to others. (Stephenson shows sympathy for the idea, but does not fully endorse it, IIRC.) In fact, one of the two main cultures in the book is consciously patterned on Victorian era middle-class Britain. The Atlantans come from that neo-Victorian culture. So the later meanings of Stephenson's word are not entirely distant from his meaning.

Should we say anything about Stephenson's original meaning in the article? I'm undecided. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If Stephenson has had nothing to do with the evolution of 'Anglosphere' as a geopolitical term, then I wouldn't be inclined to mention the details of his book. If his was the first use of the word though, I'd give him credit for it in much the same fashion as we do at the moment. Perhaps if anyone felt strongly about it, we could include a footnote to this credit, in which we could mention the whole Atlantan thing. I think that you'd have to go into more detail about who Atlantans are; I was pretty mystified when I first came across the reference.

Xdamr^talk 14:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussions and mysticism aside, I have re-added this statement/quotation with source: the link (in the section 'First Use') expatiates on Stephenson's intended (and quoted) meaning. Similarly, I might have to pour over the remainder of the article to see if anything else that is verifiable has been lost due to this or that. Cogito ergo sumo 17:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephenson's meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. This article deals with anglosphere as a geoploitical construct, any other meanings should be treated seperately. Verifiability is irrelevant - if it is nothing to do to with the topic at hand, it ought not to be included alongside it.

These quibbles aside, the sentence fails to define its terms to such a degree that it is to all intents and purposes meaningless. What is an 'Atlantan'? What on earth does 'poor in equity mean'? Mystifying readers is not the best policy to pursue; I don't think that it is a point that can be disregarded in the manner you have done. First use is etymologically interesting but has little or no bearing on the substansive topic.

Xdamr^talk 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ -- verifiability is not irrelevant but goes to the heart of the matter. The statement not only provides the first usage of the term in Stephenson's work (which is cited above that, so it's hardly irrelevant) ... but expands briefly about the fictional class of Atlantans which, arguably, parallels notions of 'Atlanticism' and actual elements of class distinction/struggle implied in the term Anglosphere. Similarly, that paragraph deals with the various meanings and interpretations for the term, so it's completely within context. Just because (largely) you and perhaps a pliant editor find the content 'mystifying' (which I do not agree with), that does not mean it is not relevant to the topic at hand. Feel free to add to it or tweak it, but I find it wholly germane. Cogito ergo sumo 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy which operates to exclude unsourced information. I can pull a sourced figure out of a hat, let's say the number of AIDS sufferers in Brazil according to the World Health Organisation; this is now a verified statistic - does that mean it belongs here? No, because it is irrelevant to the discussion - including it clouds and obfuscates the issues at hand.

I have absolutely no familiarity with the concepts and themes of Stephenson's work. If there is a parallel with Atlanticism, then draw it. Avoid confusion, rewrite the sentence so that it defines its terms; after all, many, many people have never read a word of Stephenson's in their lives. But if there is no substantial link with the geopolitical concept, then a treatment of Stephenson's definition properly belongs in a seperate article.

Xdamr^talk 10:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head: this information is sourced and germane to the topic at hand and belongs in the article, and the parallel is already there. If I added a WHO AIDS statistic to an article about the dynamo, for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion ... but that is obviously not the case. And, frankly, if you are unfamiliar with notions and concepts therein, you should refrain from editorialising said content or removing content you do not agree with. That's all. Cogito ergo sumo 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that I am unfamiliar makes my view all the more valuable, I would have thought. This article is being written to provide information to the world at large, is it not? If I, as one unfamiliar, find difficulty then does this not say something? Does this not say that the article is failing in its first duty, to inform?

If there are wider parallels that can be drawn then draw them. Otherwise this is not germane and belongs in another article (if it belongs in wikipedia at all). Stephenson is not a geoplitical writer, this article deals with a geopolitical concept.

Xdamr^talk 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No: it might be failing you given your admitted lack of understanding: even the editor who instigated this discussion attested to the possible connection. I defer to my prior statements -- I may elaborate more in text later, but continued argumentation about such germane information not belonging in an 'eponymous' Wikipedia article about the topic seems rather foolish. Cogito ergo sumo 10:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction is not germane to, nor connected with, geopolitics. The only connection is in the term itself, there is no commonality of usage - beyond this superficial level, that Stephenson first used the term, there is nothing. My position is clear, I will now await the opinions of other editors on this page.

Xdamr^talk 11:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And, overall, yours is an opinion I do not agree with it. Verifiable, germane content will remain unless an utter groundswell opposes it or compelled otherwise ... and we're not there by a long shot. Cogito ergo sumo 11:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no Jamaica?

I mean, South Africa?! Now come on! Only 8.2% even speak English. Show me Jamaica!--Greasysteve13 06:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] belize

why isn't belize cosidered here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.77.58.40 (talk • contribs).

Ditto. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

"other British and Irish groups such as the Scottish, Welsh and Scotch-Irish each making up less than 2% of the population"

This is surely incorrect, the Wikipedia article Scottish American says there are 9.1 million Americans of Scots or Scots Irish ancestry 3.2% according to the 2000 Census [10]. The Welsh American article states there are 1.7 million American people of Welsh ancestry or 0.6% to the 2000 Census [11]. Perhaps this sentence should at least be changed to say "less that 4% of the population"? However 10.8% claim Irish ancestry (part of the Anglosphere world according to a this article) and a further 0.4% state they are of "British" ancestry. This brings the total number of people reporting British or Irish ancestries (core Anglosphere) to 23.7%. Benson85 18:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet neither Jamaica, Belize nor India are included??? But Hawaii is?! Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music and Anglosphere#Anglosphere co-operation and common ground

Hey everyone. Just passing through, and I noticed that the UK's musical exports aren't mentioned in this section. The UK is a very important part of Western music. Groups such as Coldplay, Franz Ferdinand, The Chemical Brothers and Fatboy Slim are all quite popular in the United States, and all are from the UK. I refrained from putting them into the article because I thought that surely there are a number of other British groups who are currently just as popular, and I wouldn't want to give such a potentially incomplete account. So - next person who feels particularly energetic, mind incorporating this issue into the text? I'd do it, but I have more pressing issues elsewhere. Cheers! ~ Maximilli, 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All of the US

This may sound a bit strange but coloring the entire US blue and talking about it as though it was a homogenous Anglo-Saxon society is wrong. In the South west for example religion is Catholic, history is Spanish colonization and Mexican governance until the 19^th century, New Mexico has Spanish as its official language and calling LA Anglo-Saxon seems quite questionable. The article should differentiate between New England and the East Coast vs. the South West and Hawaii. When you include the US you include Hawaii, Puerto Rico, California and New Mexico. I for example happen to live in an American city that flies the Spanish and Mexican flag on the same height w/ the US flag in the country of the missions and padres, California. I just think there needs to be more disucssion over the heterogenous nature of American society and perhaps not all of the US should be colored in blue; perhaps Hawaii and New Mexico should be colored in say, green and blue while the east coast would be solid blue. Ignoring the huge cultural difference between US regions, however, seem misleading. Otherwise, it's an interesting article though! Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Anglosphere is just ment to state that the US is an Anglophone country with some cultural similarities, not that it is an Anglo nation. Also I beg to disagree that the dominantly Catholic and Italian/French/Irish Northeast (especially New England) would be solid blue (presuming blue=English). It's arguably the least anglo area of America. We'd also have to come up with a different color for the dominantly German Midwest. Finally, New Mexico has Spanish as a co-official language along with English. -DCR

The most 'Anglo' of places in the United States would be the Deep South where a majority of people denote their ancestry as being "American".. These are surely Anglos.Vlag (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

If we were to object to Coloring the US blue then by such standards there probably should not be any blue countries on that entire map.Zebulin 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada an Outlier?

Canada is not an outlier because it is next to the USA and across the Atlantic Ocean from Britain. A.L.74.120.54.168 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicities

African-Americans make up 12.9% of the population not 8.8%. Placing them as the second largest ancestry group, ahead of the Irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.93.108 (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

When is an African American such? And aren't there big overlaps between ancestry groups anyway? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in the states are a mix of Irish or African ancestry and something else. --MacRusgail 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is an Irish-American such?Vlag (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

[edit] Cultural shift

I think there should be more mention of the cultural shift in the Anglosphere from English dominance to American. This is especially apparent in Australia, and to a lesser extent Canada, within the 20th century (although of course Canada has always had a very strong US influence, for obvious reasons). A serious factor in US global dominance in cultural production, the military and economics has been the "transference" of former British/English colonies to the USA. Thanks to the British Empire, English has been spread far and wide, and this just happens to the USA's dominant language. It is about the only time in world history that two global powers in succession have shared the same language (or one of the few). --MacRusgail 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migration

I think it's worth also mentioning language as a strong factor in migration. Although this is in the process of changing, a great deal of the UK's immigrants came from colonies which spoke English to some degree, in Africa, the Caribbean, South Asia, Hong Kong and even the "Antipodes". Likewise, people from the British Isles (a phrase I hate, but it suffices for now!) tended to go to parts of the (ex-)Empire, and the USA, rather than non-English speaking parts of the world although there was once a large English speaking colony/ies in Argentina, and a few in Chile, and the Mediterranean fringe seems to be turning into an English suburb! --MacRusgail 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] does it exist?

This word may have been made up in a science-fiction book and it may have parallels in other languages, but I question whether it is in use. No newscaster on CNN or the BBC would use it without explanation, if at all. Perhaps an entry for this belongs, instead, in Wiktionary, with a note to the effect that it is more a virtual word than one that is in use. I suggest it no more exists in English than Francosphere.

I wasn't aware of the "CNN or BBC newscaster" test of notability. I dare say a good many terms defined in Wikipedia would fail that test. Korny O'Near 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it must exist : ask the average Brit where the film or TV show he is watching was made, or the music recorded or the last foreign team he watched play ( except for soccer ) or where he has family over seas. The most common answer to any of these questions would be the Anglosphere. 145.253.108.22 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but s/he would almost certainly not use the word 'Anglosphere'. That was the question posed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.53.209 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] British Israelitism

Some discussion of British Israelitism's interpretation of the Anglosphere would be amusing. I have come across some that believe it to be the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. --MacRusgail 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English speaking world

ESW redirects to Anglosphere but surely the former is the more common usage? IMHO this article has grown out of all proportion to the actual usage of the word "Anglosphere". I propose this article be moved to "English speaking world" and much of its content removed as being highly POV and OR and almost entirely unreferenced. Abtract 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South African & the Map

According to Languages_of_South_Africa#Census only 8.2% of South Africans speak English at home, yet the map in this article includes South Africa in blue, meaning a country "in which English is the first language of a large fraction of the population." By which definition of "large" can 8.2% of the population be considered a large fraction? - TheMightyQuill 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

5% or more appears to be the cutoff. 5% is certainly "large" in that it tends to be enough to support some official and unofficial recognition. Honestly I would regard anything more than 1% to be a "large" population as it is very difficult to account for such a large percentage of language speakers without some sort of large demographic shift or a stable, well established, indigenous population. My problem with the map is the Philippines. I have no idea as to why the Philippines are shaded blue.Zebulin 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Philippines may be the only place on the map that are shaded by purely American influence -- MichiganCharms 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescriptivist articles like these are a nightmare and thus experts avoid discussing about about them. Doesn't stop amateurs with limitless time on their hands though...

Multilinguistic countries like the Philippines, New Guinea, India, Singapore and South Africa use English as a linga franca. Most speak their native 'minority' langauge within their own community, but use English when talking to other citizens.

For example in Singapore few Malays speak Mandarin and few Chinese want to learn Bahasa Malay. It is much more convenient for both communities to talk to each other using English.

So, should those countries be included, even if only 8% use the language "at home"? If the statistics were for language use "at work", the numbers would be much greater. Kransky (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

I dont think Quebec should be included since they speak french or maybe a lighter blue should be used. thanks Abdelkweli 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - but this has been meet with much controversy, see below. Taifarious1 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English Speaking Word (part 2)

This is a case of the redirect being far more common then the title, anglosphere is a virtually unknown word in most circles, but also a case where they have two different meanings. For example, Ireland isn't in a lot of definitions of the Anglosphere (wrongly, since no country on Earth has more British influence) but there can be no doubt it is English speaking. Same for India and Pakistan. This article should be moved to ESW, cut down to reflect the whole English speaking world and have this concept of Anglospehere as a minor subheading in the article. - MichiganCharms 06:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement. Joeldl (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HONG KONG

As Hong Kong's official languages include English, it should be shaded blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 14:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I did not even think some people here 'zoomed' into maps that far..Vlag (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

[edit] Realists....

Along with the Suez Crisis and the Iraq War, should the American funding of I.R.A. terrorism in the United Kingdom also be mentioned?--XCassX 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Is it me or is most of this article a forum for polysci majors to spew their theories? Look at the 'Historical perspectives' section, for example - acres and acres of unsourced pontificating. And what about 'realism', 'automatonism', etc. Are these made-up terms that some Wikipedian has invented, or are they actually in use? I've never encountered them.

Under Wikipedia's policies I would be justified in deleting these sections wholesale. Should I? Cop 663 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is just "autonomism", and it has its own Wikipedia article - autonomism. So does realism, at political realism. Links to these two articles should probably be added to their respective sections. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] metric system

"A certain residual resistance against the metric system is symptomatic in the USA. On the other hand, the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have largely embraced the metric system in principle, if not always in practice."

What exactly is the difference between the countries? All of these countries have adopted the metric system in principle, ie legally at a national level. The US is singled out as having resistance against the metric system but even there the "resistance" seemed to just be a matter of the persistence of dual labeling. Is there anything to substantiate this supposed difference in which the US cannot also be said to have "largely embraced the metric system in principle, if not always in practice." That whole sentence reeks of OR.Zebulin 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. most people do not have a natural understanding of the metric system, even if they recognize the efficacy of using multiples of 10. For example, most people cannot estimate a familiar distance in kilometers and do not know their own metric heights or weights. Arguably, commercial products such as soft drinks are labeled to take advantage of our ignorance (successfully). In scientific and technical fields, the metric system is used. However, most lumber, wrenches, and other construction materials and tools are *not* manufactured for use with the metric system. As a U.S. citizen, I support the quoted statement. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

How does any of what you just said conflict with the US having embraced the metric system in principle if not always in practice?Zebulin (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no embracing going on. If I were come across the statement, "Jews in modern times continue to embrace circumcision in principle, if not always in practice," I would not wonder why Christians had been excluded from the statement. I know that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible. I know that there are Christians who have their children circumcised. But there is no basis for saying that they, as a whole, embrace circumcision in principle or practice. They don't. An embrace of the metric system would mean than people in the United States felt some kind of enthusiasm for and support of the system. They don't. As I stated earlier, almost no one, unless their profession demands it, can make a close-to-decent numerical estimate. A recent strip of Shoe featured the overweight main character standing on a scale, distressed by its reading. To falsely boost his self esteem, he switched the scale from pounds to kilograms. Outside of educated circles, people disparage SI, making it sound like a silly system of endless decimals. If we embraced it, the schools would push students to learn it. Hand tools would come in regular metric sizes. Food priced by weight would use metric mass measurements. Road signs would give metric distances and speeds. In Canada, I had no idea how expensive the gas was. In St. Maarten, I had no idea how fast to go; it's difficult to drive safely and constantly consult the speedometer. I don't even want to think about going somewhere where I have to drive in the left lane. But I'm getting off topic. There is no embrace, neither de jure nor de facto. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

The US has in fact embraced metric de jure. The metric conversion act of 1975 comes to mind. I can't see how passing such laws does not constitute embracing the metric system "in principle".Zebulin (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of that law - clearly its effect on citizens has been minimal, but still, I suppose I was wrong to say "de jure". What I objected to was the idea that we have "embraced" the system, rather than showing "resistance". I think your edit is accurate. Thank you. I may even toy around with it in order to reflect what you brought up. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nunavut

And Nunavut? its should be in light blue, the major parts of the population is not anglophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two maps better than one?

I don't think so. The second map, despite having a nicer hue, adds nothing to the article other than differentiating Quebec. (The first map simply colors a whole country.) The blue countries are all the same on both maps. The second one, which doesn't contain the light blue distinction, should be deleted from the article. (I am saying nothing about the accuracy of the maps.) MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

I am seriously considering removing the second map, as per the above. Any objections? MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusive "adoption"/nordic countries

"Other countries with substantial adoption of English are shown in light blue"

does adoption mean that it is adopted as the main language or just that most people can speak it. Because if it does, Sweden, Iceland, and possibly Norway, the south of Spain and a lot of Switzerland should be light blue.--81.105.243.17 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I came to post exactly this. I would assume that "substantial adoption of English" means a certain percentage of the population are fluent in English, I would be interested to see some estimated figures on this. MarkT39 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Americanism

The United States just doesn't want to be part of a British Empire. This question was settled in 1789. If we want an empire, we can have our own. Seriously, your average American has about as much enthusiasm for a permanent alliance of interests with far flung countries, just because they speak English, as with Mongolia. Nice to know you, we'll keep in touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.188.176 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. as soon as we get testimonials from the 299,999,999 other Americans we can alter the article to reflect this insight.Zebulin (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1789? I think you mean 1776. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I meant 1783. The US declared independence in 1776, but this was disputed by the British. It wasn't "settled" until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Anyway it was a long time ago! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.188.176 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens

Hitchens, Christopher, "An Anglosphere Future," City Journal, Autumn 2007.

Can someone work more of the Hitchens piece into this article?

TuckerResearch (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a great way to veiw what is happening in our world!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.6.87 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 

[edit] Original Research

This article article contains paragraphs of pure opinion and editorialising, well beyond what is allowed by WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The tendency to present a popular point of view and then to say that this point of view is not actually valid is almost a dictionary definition of what a neutral point of view is not. The detailed discussion of Anglo-French relations isn't relevant, nor is the copmarison of English and French linguistic attitudes. The paragraph about the influence French has had on the English language is just about relevant but it contains generalisations and appears to have been written off the top of someone's head without reference to published material. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section on "realists" too. It applies a definition to a new context, effectively coining a new term for people who hold a particular view. It's really not compatible with WP:OR. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and POV

I am a well educated American who has lived for almost 40 years in England. The term 'anglosphere' is one I have only come across (to my knowledge) on Wikipedia, where it has a huge article and keeps popping up in other articles as though it was an accepted, commonly used term. Ok, Google isn't a definite guide, but you don't get a lot of hits (129,000, quite a few of which look like Wikipedia or anglosphere websites related hits), which looks to me as though someone is pushing it, perhaps someone with a vested interest. Ok, that's just speculation, but I can't explain it any other way.Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, this article does have POV problems, but 129K Ghits is a fair bit - The usual standard of notability here is WP:N, which this passes - the references cite at least two independant, devoted sources. POV is definitely a problem - this might be worth writing from the ground up. WilyD 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting deleting it, just reigning it nt so it is about the concept and nothing else, and maybe making sure that it isn't used as a standard term elsewhere. That banner at the bottom of articles bothers me but I guess nothing can be done about it, but it does make it look as though it is a more important term than it is.

There are several books listed as conspecific references - I would guess you'd want to get you hands on those for any overhaul. WilyD 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the web links should be enough, the books are I think mainly used to write about not the concept as a concept but about the 'Anglosphere' itself, ie about all the English speaking countries seen as a bloc (or as a developing civilization as one of the web articles claims).Doug Weller (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. While the term certainly meets notability criteria, it's a piece of contrived jargon that most people recognise but would not use. I think the example I saw on Wikipedia looks a bit forced. The page need not be overly long and it should discuss actual examples of the word, rather than giving lots of OR information about English speakers. I think best thing to do with such pages is to try to limit the harm that well-meaning people can do when they try to expand articles by introducing their own ideas. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned out more, but some of the See Also (as well as other stuff I don't have time for) needs to be cleaned up. I'm away for a whyile shortly, so won't do any more right now.Doug Weller (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term "British Isles"

To describe the second map (which highlights the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), I wrote

Countries with substantial populations having their ancestral origins in the British Isles.

Bardcom has objected to, and changed, the term "British Isles", on the basis that it is a "geographical" rather than "geopolitical" term. I do not really understand the objection. After all, we say "African Americans" and Africa is a geographical, and not political, term. What's more, this use of "British Isles" is attested. For example, the Canadian government authorities in charge of the census refer to "British Isles origins" as an ethnic category grouping English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and "British, not included elsewhere".[12] [13] Bardcom feels strongly that use of "British Isles" to refer to ethnic origin is incorrect. I am asking for input on this issue. Joeldl (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously wrong then. For context, though, you should read Talk:British Isles and British Isles naming dispute and its talk page.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Doug, we're probably agreeing. If you read Talk:British Isles, it is made abundantly clear that the term is a purely geographical term. So it's no problem to use it for things like highest mountain, longest river, etc. But using it in a geo-political manner as this article does, is to be avoided. The term is contentious and objectionable to many Irish, etc, etc, etc, whatever, but the result is that the term is avoided if you start referring to Irish people - whether that's religion, culture, sport, etc.

Even leaving that aside, it's just plain wrong to use it in an article called "Anglosphere". The lead paragraph states "which share historical, political, and cultural characteristics rooted in or attributed to the historical experience of the United Kingdom (UK). The Anglosphere includes those former colonies and dominions of the UK where English is the main language.". Ireland clearly does not belong to the United Kingdom. And as the term "British Isles" includes Ireland, it is also incorrect.

Another reason is that the term Anglo refers to England (as in Anglo-Irish agreement, etc). Should we change the article to AngloIrishSphere? The history of the Anglosphere points to British origins, which is not the same thing as "origins in the British Isles". A common mistake, but easily corrected.

All of Joeldl's questions and points above, I attempted to answer on my Talk page. For example, he quotes the Canadian census as a reason - but the Canadian census explicitly states that this grouping is only used for one single report - and that other reports use the country of origin. He also fails to state that the US census, and the Australian census, and the UK census, all do *not* use this grouping. --Bardcom (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a categorization that's been used for a long time in Canadian censuses. Also, it doesn't need to be used in every country's census in order to make sense. In any case, my arguments relate to the fact that geographical terms can be appropriate as ways of grouping various ethnic origins.

Let's be clear. It's used in one report out of thousands, and even that report specifically states it's only used in one report. It's probably a throwback to older British empire days anyway, and one day they might even drag themselves into the 21st century... --Bardcom (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it used numerous times in the Canadian census. Could you cite where it says that it's used only in that report? It is true that each census comes with a new "census dictionary", defining terms as they are used in that census. It may be that you read the kind of thing that is redefined at every census. In Canada, "British Isles" is a sensible grouping because people of Irish, Scottish and Welsh descent generally belong to what is called "English" Canada, as opposed to "French" Canada.

The link you put on my Talk page [14] states a number of things. For example:

• To which ethnic or cultural groups(s) did this person's ancestors belong? For example, Canadian, French, English, Chinese, Italian, German, Scottish, Irish, Cree, Micmac, Métis, Inuit (Eskimo), East Indian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Filipino, Jewish, Greek, Jamaican, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chilean, Somali, etc. Note, there is no British Isles here - it's an aggregation applied by the Canadian government

Further on, it states

• In 2001, the 25 ethnic categories and subcategories used to classify individual ethnic origins are: (and then is lists them and states) Only one table (Canadian Overview Table) from the 2001 Census includes these ethnic categories. For all other standard tables, only the individual ethnic origins are shown. --Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The "in 2001" part is there because there are slight changes from one census to another. "British Isles" has been a category in a number of censuses. I agree that it's an aggregation. My point is that this aggregation would not be made if the component ethnic groups were not felt to be connected in some way, and also that the phrase used to describe the aggregated group is "British Isles origin", belying your argument that the idea doesn't make sense because of the geographical character of the phrase "British Isles".

If you feel that Ireland does not belong in the "Anglosphere", then you're really arguing that Ireland shouldn't be coloured in. But the vast majority of Irish people have English as their first language. They have participated significantly in all aspects of world English-language culture (not least its literature) over the past few centuries. It would be strange to exclude them. Joeldl (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about Ireland not belonging in the Anglosphere. It's the fact that Ireland is being included as being an originator that's wrong. I've asked the map creator, Taifar, to consider producing a map that only colours the UK. --Bardcom (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You mention above that Ireland does not belong to the UK. Nor do any of the other countries. In fact, the US, like Ireland, won its independence from the UK through opposition to the British. But all of the countries have a British colonial past in common. Joeldl (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point I'm making. The lead paragraph makes it clear the the Anglosphere has it's origins in the UK. You are trying to change the text to imply that the Anglosphere has it's origins in the British Isles. Can you see the problem yet? --Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I will grant that Ireland is unlike the other countries in that its population is primarily indigenous and not of English descent. To be perfectly honest, I only became interested in this article because English-speaking world redirects here. I do not believe that the "Anglosphere", as defined by the people who coined the term, is that important a notion. However, unfortunately, this currently serves as the article on the English-speaking world on Wikipedia. Ireland is a part of the English-speaking world in a way that only a handful of countries are, and I don't think anybody really cares much about this "Anglosphere" business. I will leave to others the determination of whether Ireland belongs to it. Joeldl (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is a purely geographical term. Anyone who insists that it connotes 'British imperialism' or any such nonsense or that it is geopolitical is just asking for a fight.

As for Ireland being in the Anglosphere or not, I'll just copy and paste what I've already said further up in this Talk page..

----------"Yes. Ireland IS in the Anglosphere. And stop saying "member"!! It isn't like there was a conference on who joined and who didn't. The Anglosphere is only a concept! English IS the first language of the MAJORITY of Irish people, whether they admit to it or not. The official status of the Irish language is almost a joke, judging from the real status quo in Ireland. A huge sector of the Irish population has already been Anglicized and the only reason why many people refuse to say that it is so and saying things like "No way is Ireland a 'member' of the Anglosphere.." is because many Irish do not want to admit that their culture is already heavily 'Anglo'. Besides the fact that English is THE prevailing language in Ireland, there are many aspects of life that back up what I'm trying to explain such as the huge popularity of English club football, British popular music, British shows, British comedy, British TV and so many other cultural aspects that undoubtedly make Ireland a valid part of the Anglosphere.Vlag (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag----------" Vlag (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

{unindent}Let's not stray from the point that 'Anglosphere' is indeed a concept, not some sort of entity in itself. If Bennett says it includes Ireland, it includes Ireland, it's his concept. Opinions don't matter.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusion of Quebec from maps

Taifar has decided to remove Quebec from the maps. I do not believe that's appropriate. I hope he will not object to my reproducing his arguments here:

I am going to revert your reverts as i feel that it had been discussed enough, teh statistics speak for themselves, 1 tenth of poeple in Quebec speak english, vastly outweighed by the French speaking population, and even more-so, it is a member of La Francophonie and has French as its only official languge, what more do you need?

First off, I think one tenth (about 600,000) is a substantial number of native speakers. These include Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin, Leonard Cohen, Mordecai Richler, William Shatner, Corey Hart and others.

While Quebec has French as its official language, Canada as a whole (including Quebec) has English and French as official languages. If you break things down further, you will find that certain municipalities in Quebec have both English and French as official languages, while some in New Brunswick have only French. Why should the provincial level matter more than the federal or municipal level? You will also need to start breaking down Cameroon by province if it is only provinces, and never countries, that matter.

Also, membership in La Francophonie is irrelevant, since Canada and New Brunswick are members of La Francophonie, and so is Bulgaria for that matter. (Yet Bulgaria is beyond doubt part of the Bulgarian-speaking world.)

Finally, if you are arguing on the basis of official languages, why is Quebec even light blue at all?

I believe there is currently no consensus one way or the other on this matter. It has not been discussed in a long time, and discussions in the "Quebec" section above appear to have been inconclusive, with a fair amount of opposition to excluding Quebec. I think we should stick with the status quo until there is consensus for your changes. Joeldl (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tbh i dont really care if my comments are fowarded here, but anyway, i think more discussion is needed on the subject and possibly put it to some kind of vote near the end unless there is overwhelming evidence to support a particular arguement. Taifarious1 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And PS, i made it light blue because I thought it was best to include it in the anglosphere because of the number of native speakers, but didnt warrant full inclusion because of the even larger french-speaking population. Taifarious1 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Huge swaths of Northern Canada, most (perhaps all) of South Africa, et cetera don't have majority first language Enlgish speakers. WilyD 12:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent)The bottom line is that it needs somehow to reflect the definition(s) of the creators and publicists of the term, eg Bennett, Conquest, etc. Bennett for instance talks about 'regions' of countries.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about that. I think the problem is that this article should not be the one that is linked to by articles referring to the English-speaking world, which until yesterday redirected here. (I've started a stub there.) Given the rarity of the term Anglosphere, there should not be so many links to this article. The ubiquity of references to the Anglosphere on Wikipedia has the appearance of a deliberate effort to give it prominence. Joeldl (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I've been thinking that there has been an effort to publicise this also. I'll try to do something about it.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you people have been too fussy about shading in certain parts of countries. It is either a map which only shows NATIONAL BORDERS (and in this case, Quebec would be shaded in) OR a map that shows national and INTRANATIONAL borders (in this case, Quebec or Nunavut for some of you folks, can be excluded from being shaded in).. The End.Vlag (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Vlag

[edit] Maps & Lead

It suddenly occurred to me that the only authoritative source for the maps would be the authors who have developed the concept, and that the article was veering into an attempt to create a definition, which is not the role of Wikipedia. Thus I've revised the lead and removed the maps.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these articles turn into what Wikipedia editors think constitutes the anglosphere instead of what the sources say, so I like the rework of the sentencen. However, I do like the map and think that it should remain. There should be just one map that reflects what the sources consider as the anglosphere rather than a bunch of ones. Someone could just redo the map to reflect this, make sure that it's not too big, and then re-post it. Kman543210 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I think we don't really need a map, the authors using the concept don't seem to agree as to what it is!--Doug Weller (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)