Talk:Anglosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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. ~ Ma x i m illi, 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)

[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.

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

[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.

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)

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)

[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 nations.

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.

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! ~ Ma x i m illi, 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

[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)

[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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/Talk%7EAnglosphere_df17.html"