Talk:Anglosphere/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

A Way to Improve a Terrible Article!!!!

PLEASE READ and VOTE

I propose a specific and exact approach to changing this article, and this approach has two steps. #1 This article should NOT discuss how good the Anglosphere is or bother with any mention of proponents or opponents. #2 This article should talk about the same countries mentioned in the "English Speaking World" article, and should explain the similarities those countries tend to have, the degree of unity their people tend to have, and the friendly relations their governments tend to have. If you agree with this, please respond underneath my post with an "aye" and your signature. After many ayes show up, just delete all of the article's unencyclopedic rambling, and refer to this vote in your edit summary. (Ejoty (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Yep. I wondered if there was an article on "Anglo-Saxons" in the contemporary sense of the race - and stumbled across this page. It's rubbish as it stands. It's not descriptive but philosophical. Up-its-own-aria gobbledygook.--Farry (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Francophone, Lusophone

There is no negative commentary in the lusophone, francophone, etc. articles. Why include it here? Why not just keep it simple: anglosphere- nations whose founding language is English and currently whose majority language is english and whose founding, controlling culture is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.66 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the above comments miss the point - this is not the article about the English-speaking world but about a particular philosophical/political perspective on (some of) that world, and as such proponents of the concept of the Anglosphere make claims that can be opposed, and whose opposition deserves at least some notice in the article. --CAVincent (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
p.s. It might help to redirect Anglophone to English-speaking world instead of here, if someone who knows how would be so kind.
I've turned it into a disambiguation page for now. People might type Anglophone in looking for either article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


I understand the position: that Anglo-Saxon see themselves as something special compared to the rest of the world and claims ownership of a portion of the world. I am not disputing this concept. I am saying that the same idea is present in the Franco world, Arab world, and many others yet in those articles there is no mention. No one confuses Anglophone with Anglo-sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.66 (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

South Africa

How exactly does South Africa have a "British culture"?128.211.198.168 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

South Africa was a former dominion of the British Empire - comprised of the British Cape Colony & the former Boer republics. Much of its white population is of British descent. It has therefore been heavily influenced by British culture. 75.69.101.208 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed 'Large Fraction' to 'Majority'

I changed the explanation under the map - South Africans whose first language is English form a large fraction of the population of the country (which, by the way, includes not just British-descended whites, but also most Indian South Africans, and a significant minority of the Coloured population). This would mean that South Africa ought to be in dark blue, but of course 'large fraction' is not very well defined. However, the countries in dark blue are exactly those where English is the majority language, so I have changed it to reflect this. Perhaps four colours are in order - one for countries where English is the majority language, one for cases like South Africa, where English is a significant minority first language, one for countries like India, where it is a very important official language but proportionately with a very small first-language population, and one for countries like Sierra Leone, where an English creole is predominant (though one could take the view that such Creoles are separate languages, or that as varieties of English they should not be distinguished). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.101 (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglophone

The word "anglophone" redirects to this article, but the word "anglophone" is widely used in French language studies to refer to the English speaking world community. I have encountered this word many times as I study French. For example, there is the Quebec Anglophone Heritage Network and here is an article that uses the word On The Teaching Of Francophone Cultures To Anglophone Students. I think this WikiPedia article is very inaccurate in regards to the origin and use of a term for the English speaking world community.

Rrobbins (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; "anglophone" is an empirical linguistic term and should not be redirected to a page concerning geopolitical divisions of a quasi-ideological nature. "Anglosphere" itself is a much more recent term and though it's meaning is fairly obvious and straightforward, even self-descriptive, it seems to have been co-opted for largely ideological purposes and unfortunately the tone of this article seems to have followed suit. I agree with those others here who have suggested that the article ought to be stripped down to refer to the core concept reflected in the opening description portion. Ideally, everything from the "Proponents" section on down should be removed or, at the very least, moved to it's own page (perhaps "Anglosphere Unity" or some such), if there are those who feel the ideology itself deserves it's own mention. Even maintaining it as a subsection of the current article might be feasible, but only with much more extensive and careful effort to delineate the basic pragmatic concept from the ideological extensions. Regardless, "Anglophone" should not be redirecting here, even via disambiguation. -Snow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.199.97 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Special Relationship just got specialer

The map of countries with "British" culture includes the United States. Within the Anglosphere, "British" is primarily opposed to Celtics and Americans with Canadians a grey area between UK and US but arguably "British". The term which is the title of this article is to some extent irreducible and that map appears to confuse it or some version of it with "British". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the right thing on that would be to remove the US entirely, make Ireland, one shade close to that of Britain, AU, and SA and add India and the others back in the light shade. American society became non-British or even the anti-Britain within the Anglosphere almost immediately. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This map strikes me as Original Research anyway, so I just removed it (was thinking about it for awhile). The US is not "British", but any map aimed at illustrating the Anglosphere without including the US would obviously be wrong. --CAVincent (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Everytime something comes up with the word British in it ,Wiki goes completely mad. The US despite its protests is overwhelmingly a British nation Its governmental structure is an exact copy on the British in 1776..there is a house of commons ..representatives a house of lords the senate ..NOT elected until 1920 and an elected King..the original name for the President who has exactly the same rights powers dituties and limitations as George III had...Jeffersons remarks in the Declaraion about GIII being a tryrant always made Jefferson laugh in later years..Well I had to put in something didnt I? I fact Obamas present problems show exactly how constitutional GIII was. Laws passed in Britain were almostentirely adopted auto matically be the US government..this only began to change about 1870 America is different socially in that the spirit of absolute equality blazes very stronly whereas Britian still has a class based society but these are cultural differences Just because they are so similar does not mean they like each other however..indeed under the surface they have been rivals for over two hundred years.

If you're interested in making something appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia it should not be original research. If you start asking yourself whether or not the United States should be included in the Anglosphere you are on the wrong track. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so find a quality source which describes the membership of this group called "Anglosphere" and stick with that, and cite your source. That way there's nothing to explain or debate. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's words

I think these words of Winston Churchill, with regard to Europe should be relevant to the main article, when discussing Michael Ignatieff's exchange with Robert Conquest}:

We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Map and Tables

I really don't think it can be claimed that a majority speak English as a native language in South Africa, and Malta. It's still official in these countries so they should be light blue. cheers 90.203.165.142 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch IP. The map is someone's original research, clearly not accurate to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, both the map and table are clearly inaccurate. To wit, Guyana is a majority-English-speaking country, and on the map it should be dark blue. It should also be in the second table, not the first, as should Ireland and various other majority-English-speaking (anglophone?) Caribbean countries such as Jamaica, Barbados, St Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, etc. When I get time I'll go in and clean the table up, if someone doesn't take the initiative first.Ellogo (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quebec

The map should be altered to make Quebec turquoise (denoting that English is strictly an administrative language) and not blue (where it is the majority language). 12.239.145.114 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's done by countries, not by subnational entities. CMD (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Map

That map appears to be an amalgalm of original research and/or synthesis. At minimum some source for it, with at least that sources working definition of what it all means would be needed.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no there's no map at all, could someone add one?Invmog (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to list India has having a negligible English speaking population; most of the urban population converses almost exclusively in English at this point... While perhaps the % is not a majority, the cultural weight of the elites in every walk of life being primarily English speakers cannot be understated... 68.50.174.146 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Anglospeak(800px).png is outdated/wrong. Malaysia should be light blue at least, and if the Philippines was to be there then the likes of Thailand certainly should. Likewise British PalestineLihaas (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Could someone who does the next update please add my beloved country BELIZE as an englishspeaking country!?? It might be small but it will still be big enough to see that blue spot on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.198.66 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How old is this article that the map is still inaccurate? Jamaica and Guyana are in light blue! Everyone speaks English as a first language in Jamaica and Guyana. Belize may also have a claim to dark blue status as approximately 50% of its population speaks English as a first language.67.250.59.122 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory

"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.[3] Bennett says the concept is not "racialist" and that "Anglospherism is based on the intellectual understanding of the roots of both successful market economies and constitutional democracies in strong civil society."

The idea that is not "racialist" is negated by the conclusion of Ireland as being more closer to the Anglosphere than non-white nations like Jamaica or Singapore. Those nations were founded and based on British culture, while Ireland was its own, seperate culture that now speaks English and just happens to be white. --173.59.59.164 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of these comments are clearly from people who have not been to the UK or Ireland. Ireland and the UK are close neighbours and have been influencing each other for centuries. The cultural differences between Ireland and the island of Britain are no larger than cultural differences between regions within the islands. With 25% of the UK population descended from Irish ancestors, this should not be a surpise. In the context of this article (common language, market economics, liberal democracy, & common law), Ireland is clearly within the Anglosphere - as is the US, Canada, Australia etc.216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

...But Jamaica and the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean aren't part of the Anglosphere? Have you ever been to the Caribbean? Just because most Jamaicans are black and most Irish are white doesn't mean Jamaica should be left out. How is this concept not a racialist one? --74.103.150.125 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Too add to the above comment- In many ways Carribean English is closer to British English than American English is. They use words like chap, petrol, and lorry which aren't seen much in American English. As far as culture goes, they drive on the left side and love cricket in the Carribean.67.250.59.122 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Countries with large amounts of English Speakers

Should there not also be a colour for Countries where a large percentage can speak English? Theofficeprankster (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove note 2 (Ireland)

The note about Ireland, which states that County Galway has an Irish-speaking majority, must be removed. Wikipedia's own article about County Galway says that there are only 30,000 to 40,000 Irish-speakers in the county, which has a population of about 250,000 (or still 150,000 if one excludes the City of Galway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.235.117 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — Jon C.ॐ 14:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest English Speak City

New York City?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.153.226 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC) The largest English speaking city in the world is Mumbai ,India, population 21,000,000 (2011)..and believe me ,every one there like the rest of India ,speaks English80.98.113.13 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Quebec in lead

Definitions of the anglosphere vary. The lead should present a simple widely used definition of the term, with competing definitions and complexities discussed in the body of the article. James Bennett's definition in the body of the article does in fact specify "English-speaking Canada". Proponents of the term anglosphere often use it to discuss shared military/foreign policy goals of the included nations; Quebec does not have a separate foreign policy from the rest of Canada. New Zealand is also officially bilingual, and several First Nation languages are official in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. US and Australia also have people speaking indigenous languages, and all of the Anglosphere countries have immigrants from non-English speaking countries. The lead paragraph is not the place to get into these complexities. The lead does mention that the Anglosphere has it's "source in colonial settlement by populations originating from Anglo-Saxon England". While they are not First Nations, the French speaking population in Canada was colonized by England.Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

lede/'restricted' definition

Several users (particularly Bardrick) appear to have a particular interest in restoring the previous unsourced, cumbersome lede "restricting" the definition of Anglosphere to only countries in the UKUSA/ABCA programs, and also using awkward, wordy language to expound upon the peoples of Wales and Northern Ireland and whether or not Rhodesia and South Africa could formerly be called "Anglospheric" countries. These reverts are done without discussion or explanation and thus should be considered edit-warring. Nothing in the article indicates a "restricted" definition based on military affiliation of countries, nor does it qualify whether or not Rhodesia or South Africa formerly qualified as "Anglospheric." Users should be on the watch for any further such edits, because they are counterproductive and do not contribute to improving the article at all. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 76.171.231.104 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm responsible for putting the UKUSA/ABCA programs in the lede, and I regret it. It was original research. I first came across this article looking for information along the lines of what's at English-speaking_world#Geographic_distribution, and had assumed Anglosphere was a reasonable search term. Apparently, a lot of people thought the same thing, and "Anglosphere" was at one point being promoted on Wikipedia as a synonym with "English-speaking-world" (so there are tons of incoming links/attention to this article). "Anglosphere" was coined in a science fiction novel in the 90s, and the term was adopted by right wing war advocates in the early 2000s to describe a military alignment between several first world nations with a majority population speaking English as a native language. I think there is a pretty clear history of shared military/foreign policy goals between these nations in the 20th century, but it's OR to talk about this history under the term "Anglosphere", and I shouldn't have added UKUSA/ABCA to the lede (they were in the article as See also links when I added them to the lede). When I came across the article ([1]), it was basically a fork of List of English-speaking countries following several edit wars over whether Quebec was a part of the Anglosphere. Quebec is certainly culturally distinct from English speaking Canada, but doesn't have an independent foreign policy, and the Anglosphere concept is largely about foreign policy of nation states. The article was originally created to cover the right-wing Anglosphere concept, which is not a subject I'm particularly interested in, but is something I believe is encyclopedic. I'd be happy to see Anglosphere redirect to English-speaking_world#Geographic_distribution, which seems to be what most people are hoping to find, but the military/foreign policy concept ought to be treated somewhere. Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


If any1 wishes to discuss the issue in detail, please contact me for an explanation. With regard to "Shuttegod" I am in militant disagreement that the previous text he mangled & reduced in his arrogant edit was "wordy" or "awkward", it was a tight, concise very well written opening to the article explaining in essence what the Anglosphere is. What he reduced it to with his edit - with its bombastic egotistical patronising editing note - was weakly written, mushy, vague & illogical at points. Sorry if that's a bit tuff, but it's the truth. The Anglosphere is an increasingly important concept geo-strategically & it's important to get this source for the term right for those who search via Google for an explanation of it. I am open to edits, but they need to augment & improve the opening text, not reduce & state things that are not true, such as "Eire being a part of the Anglosphere" - any1 with the slightest comprehension of the history of Ireland since 1916 can see the fallacy of this view, & whomever holds it does not grasp even the basics of what the Anglosphere actually is!

Plantdrew - Yr edit of the arms programme that militarily links the Anglosphere was useful & interesting, & I left it at 1st, even tho it didn't quite belong in the opening preamble of the article as it was a little too micro & not macro enough for an opening principle description, the reason I edited it out in my scrapping of "Shuttegod's" massacring of the text is that it seemed to be antagonizing him, & it was out of place a little in the opening. Please place in in the body of the text lower down under a "military links" section by all means.

Bardrick (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't want to start an argument with you, since you appear to be bound and determined to be disruptive and counterconstructive here - not only for your (laughably ironic) pronouncement of my edits as "arrogant," but the fact that you keep restoring your lede without explanation, in defiance of long-established WP policy. Not to mention that, given your destructive comments here, you are obviously on the far side of assuming good faith. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before making any more contributions. Not only in the manner with which you interact with other editors, but also what would constitute relevant contributions to articles. This includes the basic rule that ledes should be relevant to what appears in the body text of the article, and in that vein should not include unsourced factoids you happen to find interesting. If you have reliable, reputable sources to indicate that the Anglosphere is a semi-official organism that is intrinsically tied to the Anglo-American alliance, by all means, present them, and we can hash it out here. Otherwise, just leave it be. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
edit to my last: given that this article's edit history clearly demonstrates that Bardrick is deeply committed to being destructive, I don't think he should have any hand in improving this article at all. Personally I think it should be temporarily locked until we can come to consensus what the lede should actually include. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was the version I restored the article to discuss the Anglosphere concept (rather than just being a list of English speaking countries [2] (originally from 18 July 2011). Lede in this version is much simpler (although I think it invites trouble and further hairsplitting by omitting Quebec in the lede; keep the lede definition simple and explore the complexities (with citations) in the text).

ALSO, STOP EDIT WARRING, SEE WP:3RR. Noraton, Saguamundi, you've made 3 reverts in 36 hours. Bardrick, you've made 6 reverts in 36 hours. Discuss your favored wording on the talk page, or take it arbitration. Edit warring gets us nowhere.Plantdrew (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Structure of lead section

Hmm, well I was going to add this to the comments above but as that looks like it'll degenerate quite quickly a new section may be better.

Clearly the lead needs some sort of structure. I'm actually particularly concerned by the length of sentences there - long, compound stuff really doesn't help, particularly online. Might, for example, it be easier to say that Anglosphere has its "source in colonial settlement by populations originating from the British Isles"? Rather than listing the constituent parts of the British Isles - which will only lead to list silliness. The sixteenth century bit can go in a new sentence and, heck, we can even mention celts if people really need to.

Then a second paragraph could, perhaps, deal with the political ties and so on. I wouldn't want to distract from discussion of over-precise definitions and so on, but the structure does need to be looked at as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the article supposed to be about?

This article is useless. What should is it's topic supposed to be? Currently, it's a less comprehensive version of List of countries where English is an official language. I had searched for "anglosphere" hoping to find something like this List of countries by English-speaking population. If there is a need to have a more in depth discussion about the countries where English is spoken than a list format allows, this article is sitting around as a glorified stub English-speaking world.

A couple of years ago this article was about about a sociopolitical concept that basically sums up as "countries with a bunch of white people who speak English", i.e. UK, US, CA, AU, NZ, maybe Ireland or South Africa, maybe not Quebec and certainly not India, Nigeria or Jamaica (see here: [3]). There should probably be an article for that concept; the first few pages of Google results for "anglosphere" are mostly about it rather than all the countries and people speaking English. "English-speaking world" is far more common as a phrase for everybody who speaks English (524,000 Google results for "anglosphere", 95,700,000 for "English speaking world").

This article has had it's subject completely changed over time from the US+UK+CA+AU+NZ definition to "all English speakers", and most of the incoming links use appear to be using the broader definition, not to mention that I came here myself after searching for "Anglosphere" with the broader definition in mind. The restricted definition needs an article. The current contents of this article are redundant, being less useful than several existing articles/lists using the broader concept. Sorting out the broader concept is tough enough ("maybe not Quebec", etc.).

I could seee:

1: Restore the content using the narrower US+UK+CA+AU+NZ definition at this article. Stick in a hatnote for English-speaking world, mention that article again in the lede, and feature it more prominently in See Other.
2: Put the US+UK+CA+AU+NZ content at something like Anglosphere (sociopolitical concept) and make this page a disambiguation to that article and English-speaking world.

I suppose one could also merge/move this page with English-speaking world as has been suggested previously, but the disambiguation route seems better than that.

I'm leaning towards #1. There is the possibility that the article will get changed to the broader definition again, and future incoming links may have the broad definition in mind. #2 avoids those possibilities, but involves an awkward title for the US+UK+CA+AU+NZ concept which seems to be the primary subject for Anglosphere in anything approaching a reliable source (in spite of confusion by myself and others). Oops, I wasn't logged in Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Also support #1. The Anglosphere is more than just a collection of English-speaking countries, it's a term used to describe those nations with a broader English/British/Anglo-Saxon culture, as you've said. — Jon C.ॐ 08:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
OMG, this is a mess. Is there a WP:Incoming link mess I can report this to? I'm leaning towards a redirect after looking at incoming links and the the talk page archives ([4]). Changing this page is straightforward, but the incoming links are all over the place. Anglophone is the existing redirect article but there a multiple redirects to Anglosphere that might be better sent to English-speaking world. Or not. Spiritualism says: Spiritualism developed and reached its peak growth in membership from the 1840s to the 1920s, especially in English-language countries. I suspect that spiritualism was a fad in at least UK+US, maybe CA+AU+NZ and probably a few British colonialists in Nigeria and India et al. Should that link go to Anglosphere or English-speaking world or English language? By comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglosphere/Archive_1#Remove_most_references_to_the_Anglosphere_on_other_pages], Wikipedia itself has reveresed positions on the nomenclature of the broad and narrow concepts. Can a bot direct all the ambiguous links to Anglophone for later resolution?Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I also support #1, although incoming links will have to be dealt with first. There probably is a bot/script that can do it, as I've seen one that makes changes after page moves. CMD (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the definition in the first sentence is spot on, but the rest of the article no longer reflects that definition. Anglosphere is a useful term in military history and political science because it is distinct from Anglophone. We don't want to lose that distinction or we are losing the utility of the term. It is about strategic collaboration through traditional, historic or cultural ties. For this reason I would question Ireland's inclusion as it has been on the other side of the colonial struggle. Ireland has contributed to the anglosphere through its diaspora.Rowaneisner (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First usage not by Neal Stephenson in 1995 (2)

see above § First usage not by Neal Stephenson in 1995

A Google book search of the 20th century turns up books with the usage of "Anglo sphere" prior to 1995. Some of these are referring to other types of concepts to do with Anglo American the mining group. But here for example is a volume from 1971

Economic Integration and Cultural Assimilation: Mexican-Americans in San Jose by Diane Adele Trombetta Reynolds (Stanford University, 1974) page 74

Many aspects of informants' life styles demonstrated a commitment to the American or Anglo sphere of their cultural environment. Informants had goals such as higher education for their children and certain physical comforts which they felt ...

-- PBS (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

James Bennett's Anglosphere Geometry map

In Bennett's "The Anglosphere challenge", which is one of the main sources for the very concept of the Anglosphere, he describes it as concentric circles. You can read a summary here by another author's analysis: http://www.academia.edu/341929/Beyond_the_West_and_Towards_the_Anglosphere

"In this respect he posits the existence of a series of concentric spheres marked according tohow far each shares core Anglosphere characteristics. At the core are the central nodes of the US and Britain surrounded by English-speaking Canada, Ireland,Australia, New Zealand and the English-speaking Caribbean. The middle sphere comprises states where English is one of several official languages, but where the primary connections to the outside world are in English. This includes English-speakers in South Africa (but not Afrikaans), Zimbabwe, the non-Islamic, non-Indian former British colonies in Africa, the South Pacific, and parts of Asia. The outer sphere comprises English-using states of other civilisations and might include India, Pakistan, the Arab states formerly under British control and Britain‘s former Islamic colonies. Finally, Bennett posits a peripheral sphere of states where English is widely used but is not an official governmental language. These include Northern Europe,East Asia and northern Latin America (Bennett 2004b: 80-1). What stands out here, of course, is the omission of continental Western Europe and the implication that the cultural differences between Latin and Germanic Europe (traditionally core components of the West) and the Anglosphere are greater than those between the inner core of the Anglosphere and those of its outer and peripheral spheres."

I've been conservative, James Bennett considers "Northern Europe, Northern Latin America and East Asia" as part of the periphery of the Anglosphere (the latter two are not shown), and "Arab states formerly under British control" as part of the outer sphere -that explains Kuwait and another former British Arab protectorates and colonies. In the uploaded map, I've added only Northern Europe countries with more than 50% English-speakers according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population , that explains Netherlands and Estonia.

Nagihuin (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This article must have one of the highest map per word ratio of Wikipedia now. I have the strong impression that since I first read the word 'Anglosphere' when Conrad Black (Lord Black of Crossharbour, if you prefer) wrote something about it ages ago, enthusiasm for the 'Anglosphere' (whatever it is and whatever countries/continents you put in it) has remained the preserve of the odd British Conservative backbencher, or of this and that professor at a university in Dublin or Nova Scotia, or of obscure conservative "businessmen" like this fellow Bennett. (At least Black was well-known, at one time.)--Lubiesque (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You've basically just admitted that the map is original research because you said Bennett includes other countries that you have not and the selection of countries included in the map is your own. DrKay (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It was not my intention at any moment to do original research. Thus, I've made changes to the map to fit 100% Bennett's words, so check it out. Now the periphery is only labelled, instead of shaded. The rest is fine.

Nagihuin (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

First usage not by Neal Stephenson in 1995

See Talk:Anglosphere/Archive 1#First usage, The Economist entry for 1856 Page 97 is almost certainly worong. But the others were right I am disappointed that the inaccuracy that "The term Anglosphere was first used by author Neal Stephenson in his 1995 novel" has been allowed to creep back into this article I am removing it as it is defiantly false. -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The first usage does indeed appear to have been by Neal Stephenson (see [5]). The Economist article cited in the archived discussion is not from 1856, and can be seen with the date Nov-1-2007 here (http://www.economist.com/node/10059769). The other sources of the term you cite specifically are from 2001-2004. While Google Books does indeed return results for "anglosphere" published before 1995 (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=anglosphere&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1995&num=10), I went on to search several of the resulting books themselves for "anglosphere" and did not find any results.Plantdrew (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I see that Wordspy was being cited when you removed the attribution to Stephenson. A later editor also removed a subsequent addition of Stephenson/Wordspy citing WP:BLOGS. If the Wordspy website is not a reliable source, would the Wordspy book ([6]) be considered one? Can you find a link on Google books prior to 1995 that actually contains the word "anglosphere" to definitively disprove the Stephenson attribution?Plantdrew (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Puzzled then that Google NGram lists usages of the word from 1888. [7] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Me, too. But here's something I noticed. Google reports the word as being used in Wells's 1935 Things to Come. But it doesn't appear to have been used in the text itself, but in the newly-written Preface to a 2007 re-publication by McFarland. Perhaps something similar is happening with the earlier citations. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-open merge discussion?

It has been suggested before that this article could be merged with English-speaking world. The argument against is that there are distinctions being made by the two articles thus justifying a separation. However, I would argue

  1. Even with the distinctions being argued, we are really talking about a continuum of cultures stretching from those very tightly aligned with British culture and those that happen to speak English but who cultures are much more different. Though one can draw boundaries in that continuum the real question is whether there is enough unique content to each of part of that continuum to merit separate articles. Ultimately that continuum can be discussed in one article with the distinctions in terminology discussed within that one article.
  2. Ultimately it is important to be careful about WP:NAD. The fact that two terms can be said to have slightly different meanings does not mean they each deserve an article. With rare exceptions articles should not be about words but about concepts those words represent. So again, are the topics distinct enough to merit the separation or we just spawning articles because we like certain words?

In my mind, though the distinction that has been argued merits discussion in an article, it still seems to me that trying to discuss this in two articles is rather contrived.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Do a Google search for Anglosphere and examine some of the results. This article is the first non-Wikipedia result I get. Anglosphere is not being used as a synonym for the English-speaking world. It's a socio-political concept, mostly supported by conservatives arguing for closer economic and military ties between a subset of the nations with English as an official language. Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland?

Its not in the total table at the begining of the article is there any reason for that?DoctorHver (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources used in the article on Ireland's status within the Anglosphere explain that Ireland is commonly not included in definitions of the Anglosphere (the core countries being the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Brythones (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV or Nahh?

It’s pretty obvious the top part of the article has been hijacked by someone with an agenda. By the way canzuk? A Google search reveals it to be no more than a pipe dream for now. But along with this agenda the largest native English speaking nation has been relegated to second class status in the “Anglosphere” it appears only as an afterthought like, ohh yeah the United States is also usually part of the Anglsphere. But them also includes Ireland which in my experience is almost never linked to the “Anglo” nations. 99.11.203.192 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The point being conveyed in the opening of the article is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are politically, socially and historically much closer to each other over the United States, and form the most basic definition of the "Anglosphere". This is because unlike the United States:
* They share the same head of state (currently Elizabeth II)
* They are all Commonwealth Nations
* They played a much more integrated role in the development of the British Empire over the United States, meaning that many institutions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand are based off of the UK (for example using the Westminster system of government)
* Shared memory of the British Empire and World Wars
* Canada, Australia and New Zealand share strong familial ties to the United Kingdom, with British being far and away the most common ancestry in those countries (fifth most common in the USA after German, African, Mexican and Irish)
* There are calls for free trade and movement of citizens between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom excluding the United States which has widespread public support
Therefore you could argue that Canada, Australia and New Zealand fall into the British cultural sphere significantly more so than the United States and that "CANZUK" is a more recognisable and cohesive cultural unit than "CANZUKUS". It is also the case that some definitions of the Anglosphere exclusively involve some combination of Commonwealth Nations which the United States is not a member of, but all definitions involve Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Brythones (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Every accessible citation in the article includes the United States in the definition of the Anglosphere. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviews of the historical use of "Anglosphere"

193.51.83.49 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

New critical book by the same authors: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/in-the-shadows-of-empire-how-the-anglosphere-dream-lives-on/ Kaihsu (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I added some information from these two professors in the section on criticisms. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Further sources

Governing Party

The Democratic Party should be added as the governing party of the US. Dogblock (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed since. Kaihsu (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Agricultural columns for Core Anglosphere table

Are the columns about forests, crops, and livestock relevant? As mentioned in the text, these are industrialized countries and that's why they're in the core. Kaihsu (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Political systems

I hope to add something about constitutional monarchy, FPTP, two-party system, etc. – Kaihsu (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should it be noted that proponents typically come from the political right, and critics from the left? – Kaihsu (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Delayed response, but yes. It's worth noting that the Anglosphere concept is a political one, not merely a grouping of English-speaking nations, and support tends to come from the right. CAVincent (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:BRD: “Proponents of the Anglosphere idea typically come from the political right (such as Andrew Roberts of the UK Conservative Party), and critics from the left (for example Michael Ignatieff of the Liberal Party of Canada).” – Kaihsu (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ireland is not a "Core" Anglosphere Nation

Ireland is part of the Anglosphere's broader realm of influence the same as India or Nigeria are. By the most literal definition of the word "Anglosphere", Ireland is not a primary Anglosphere nation because it is not an Anglo nation, aside from the fact that it does not work with the Anglosphere in international relations. An earlier discussion on this Talk page determined that it was not really fitting to include Ireland on the page at all (Anglophone and Anglosphere are not synonyms), but Ireland has now not only been added to the page but forced into the "core" group as well? This page needs to be adjusted. 021120x (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently abundantly clear that there are five core nations: US, UK, CAN, AUS, NZ. I'm guessing that you are objecting to the current sentence "This term can also encompass Ireland and less frequently Malta and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries." The sentence is accurate in that Ireland is much more likely to be also included than, say, Malta. If you are objecting to the map, I would be happy to see the map removed from the article entirely. It doesn't really add anything, and is a point of contention.CAVincent (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I support removing or replacing the map. 021120x (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can remove sourced, relevant content just because wikipedians disagree with it. DrKay (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that the map is particularly relevant content - I'd hope most readers of this article could already find the core nations on a map, and most of the other nations as well. As for "sourced", the map is an "own work" with multiple objections raised as to whether it actually represents the source being cited. CAVincent (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As stated, the source reads "At the core are the central nodes of the US and Britain surrounded by English-speaking Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the English-speaking Caribbean. The middle sphere comprises states where English is one of several official languages, but where the primary connections to the outside world are in English. This includes English-speakers in South Africa (but not Afrikaans), Zimbabwe, the non-Islamic, non-Indian former British colonies in Africa, the South Pacific, and parts of Asia. The outer sphere comprises English-using states of other civilisations and might include India, Pakistan, the Arab states formerly under British control and Britain‘s former Islamic colonies. Finally, Bennett posits a peripheral sphere of states where English is widely used but is not an official governmental language. These include Northern Europe, East Asia and northern Latin America (Bennett 2004b: 80-1)." If you wish to move the Arab states from the periphery into the outer sphere, so that the file accurately reflects the source, then the solution is to correct the file not remove it altogether. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglosphere/Archive_2&oldid=1175138955"