Talk:Anglophilia

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

Sources reminder[edit]

A reminder to everyone. The list is of notable people - red links are not accepted. And sources have to be provided. Jagdfeld (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced examples[edit]

These can be restored when sources backing them up are provided:

Assad[edit]

The concept that Assad is an Anglophile is a bit ludicrous. He clearly does not believe in British ideals such as parliamentary democracy, due process, common law, or the sovereignty of the individual. A single sourced statement, without anything more than circumstantial evidence, is not sufficient. - 64.222.149.167 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Salmond[edit]

This article is clearly a joke. Alex Salmond? Hates the English more than anything. 78.105.206.30 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Hardly think he does.(Butters x (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Versions[edit]

The version to which I am reverting is an improvement over the other version as it removes trivia and uncited assertions. - Francis Tyers · 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you are removing a substantial portion of the article - sourced as well as yet unsourced - and doing so against the wishes of the other editors. There's some rule about that kind of thing. Jagdfeld (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you like it does not overcome Wikipedia's policies. You are restoring a large amount of text with no references at all. On this, policy is clear. - Francis Tyers · 15:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through we are now hacking at individual parts of the article rather than removing most of it, progress of a sort I guess. I do think we need to mediate this rather than remove whole rafts of material. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Material that is uncited is being restored, in violation of the policies of Wikipedia. I would implore that this come to an end. - Francis Tyers · 12:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you keep removing sourced material. (PS your command of the English language might be improved.) Jagdfeld (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My doubt of that is substantial. Perhaps it could be outlined, outside of this talk page where it is considered I might be able to improve? - Francis Tyers · 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is an overriding consensus that the version that Francis Tyers disrupts is the version to move forwards from.Londo06 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus in violation of policy is not consensus. - Francis Tyers · 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read through history and reverted to the agreed version. Come on the Mothers (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we now have someone else hacking away at the article. Have sent it back to the way it was.  CorleoneSerpicoMontana  09:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with this page[edit]

Apparently it becomes necessary to spell out in detail the issues with the version of the page to which the majority has a strong attachment. Please if you wish to respond, respond in the subsection below, this way we will be able to maintain a reasonably organised discussion, outside of the quotation.

Introduction/lead[edit]

"The term is often used in particular for people all over the world (in America especially in New England, New York, and elsewhere along the northern East Coast of the United States) who ostensibly base their business, political, or social practices on like of or admiration for English models[citation needed]."

This paragraph is uncited. This goes against Wikipedia's policies against uncited assertions.

Famous Anglophiles[edit]

This particular section is the most egregious in the whole article, and merits a thorough cleanup, if not outright deletion. In fact, the section was deleted during AfD. Note, this list includes living people, so should comply with the WP:BLP policy. To remind those unfamiliar with the policy:

"Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]"
"...Bashar is an Anglophile, who studied in London for two years, and he is close to another young reformist leader..."
This is from an article by Ewen MacAskill and Suzanne Goldenberg in The Guardian. The Guardian qualifies as a reliable source, as it is a mainstream news organisation, but this particular part of the article is opinion, and the article does not treat his supposed "anglophilia" in general.
"Anglophile author Bill Bryson proves a genial guide to an ancient British footpath"
The article that is being cited doesn't say anything about Bill Bryson's supposed "anglophilia", but just mentions it in passing, a
This entry is uncited. This goes against Wikipedia's policies against uncited assertions.
Martyn Palmer: "It was no coincidence that Depp was in Britain at the time; he is an Anglophile, happiest working with British actors and crews."
Ian Nathan: "Even Depp seemed to change nationalities on set. “He’s a great Anglophile and goes round saying ‘bugger’ and ‘damn’ all day long,” says McNally. "
This site has two interviews on the same page, one is from the Mail on Sunday, and the other is by someone called "Ian Nathan". While I'd dispute whether the Daily Mail and sister publications qualify as the "higher end of the mainstream news market", certainly it shouldn't be excluded on those grounds. However, the first appears to be opinion. And the opinion of one person in particular, "Martyn Palmer", the gentleman writing the article. The second has an author, but we have no idea where it comes from. It might as well be self-published.
  • "An ardent Anglophile, he thrives on English culture: Frankie is an avid Arsenal supporter, has a line of frozen Italian food and was even awarded an honorary MBE."
This is from the Biography Channel, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a scholarly, reliable source.
"And the American-born composer, a staunch Anglophile, well versed in English literature and an expert in English garden architecture..."
This article seems to be broadly in line with policy. It is written in a biographical tone, is referenced etc. If we are to have the list, this one could probably stay. Although I would question the utility of a list in the first place.
"A self-avowed Anglophile, he was a hugely enthusiastic reader of the Aubrey/Maturin novels of the late Patrick O'Brian and was co-chairman of the American Air Museum in Britain. "
From the BBC, a reasonably reliable source. If he is a self-avowed Anglophile this would probably have been mentioned in one of his many scholarly biographies. This would be a better source and so I would probably remove it until then.
"and were also the heroes of Humphries' Anglophile youth in Melbourne and Sydney."
This does not say Humphries is an Anglophile, but that his "youth" or "youth in Melbourne and Sydney" was an Anglophile one.
"What do the English make of Madonna's Anglophile makeover? Do they see her as some kind of Diana wannabe?"
I don't know if USA Today qualifies as a reliable source, isn't it something like The Sun ? In any case, this does not say that Madonna is an Anglophile, but has had an "Anglophile makeover". Dressing as a badger does not make one a badger.
I can't check this reference as I don't have access to the book. It should probably stay as it is verifiable at least. See caveat regarding the existence of the section under "Bernard Herrmann".
"...providing him with a well-defined set of interrelated roles which he sometimes facetiously, sometimes tenaciously assumed: the Anglophile gentleman who upheld the most staid conventionality and lamented the "tragic rebellion of 1775-83,""
This doesn't state that Lovecraft was an Anglophile.
"Well, I have always thought that he is an Anglophile, and in a way it's hard not to be ..."
This is a flat out opinion, the opinion of Richard Stengel.
I can't check this reference as I don't have access to the book. It should probably stay as it is verifiable at least. See caveat regarding the existence of the section under "Bernard Herrmann".
This reference does not exist, therefore its verifiability cannot be checked. It should be removed.
This reference does not exist, therefore its verifiability cannot be checked. It should be removed.
This seems to be well sourced, although I would change the wording. It should probably stay as it is verifiable at least. See caveat regarding the existence of the section under "Bernard Herrmann".
"A spell as a British Council scholar in Leeds at the end of the 1950s had made him into something of an Anglophile:"
Hardly a definitive statement. This should be removed.
There is no reference to the supposed "anglophilia" of Gwyneth Paltrow in this source. Therefore it is not verifiable and should be removed.
"I was hurt by the reception Sweeney got in London," he remembers. "I'm an Anglophile. The piece was based on Victorian melodrama, it's a love-letter to England. And if anyone should be able to do it, it's a British cast."
Fair enough, that is a direct self-identifying statement.
"brainyquote" is not a reliable source.
This entry is uncited. This goes against Wikipedia's policies against uncited assertions.
"Anglophile White Stripes show their gratitude by performing for Chelsea Pensioners"
The Daily Mail, see caveat above, is not what I would consider a reliable source. This article does not discuss the "anglophilia" of the White Stripes, in fact it addresses them as a block, not only Jack White.
"Wood is clearly something of an Anglophile. Even before she started dating Bell - they met on the set of a Green Day video last year..."
Opinion.

Fictional Anglophiles[edit]

"Dr. Frasier Crane - character on the American television sitcoms Cheers and Frasier; he was portrayed by Kelsey Grammer.[citation needed]"

This paragraph is uncited. This goes against Wikipedia's policies against uncited assertions.

External links[edit]

"Anglophrenia" is a blog, linking to this goes against several points in the external link guidelines, specifically 1, 11, and 13.

- Francis Tyers · 08:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to above problems[edit]

So the question is: why have you been indulging in what even you admit, by implication from the analysis above, was indiscriminate vandalism? If you have a problem with an aspect of the article, mark it as a problem and if it is not improved remove it. Follow the golden rules: Assume good faith. Work collaboratively. Don't get your knickers in a twist about small things. When you are dead, or get older, you might feel embarrassed at being a time-waster. Jagdfeld (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove my talk page comments, nor those of other contributors. - Francis Tyers · 10:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Unintended. I have restored the comments you removed.Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"why have you been indulging in what even you admit, by implication from the analysis above, was indiscriminate vandalism?"
Vandalism is defined by WP:VAN, as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.", my edits do not fall under this category. As is clear from the above, and from my previous comments on this talk page I am acting in such a way to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policy. - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CLEARLY they do Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If you have a problem with an aspect of the article, mark it as a problem and if it is not improved remove it."
This has been my strategy. I have marked sections to be cited, and since they have not been cited (improved) in 5-6 months, I have opted (as is suggested in the above quote) to remove them. - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO. You have REPEATEDLY blanked large portions of the article Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Follow the golden rules: Assume good faith. Work collaboratively. "
I am following the rules. I am working collaboratively. I am assuming good faith. - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT. You have given no regard to the CONSENSUS. Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't get your knickers in a twist about small things."
Please do not presume to give me orders. - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a shave. Get a haircut. Have a wash. Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop getting personal when debating something. Debate the idea, not the person who promotes it. bogdan (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"When you are dead, or get older, you might feel embarrassed at being a time-waster."
Please attempt to keep personal speculations from the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you to grow up. It is not personal. It is a comment on your activity. Jagdfeld (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Francis Tyers: repeated vandalism[edit]

It is now perfectly clear, given his history of vandalism of this article, that Francis Tyers should be blocked. Jagdfeld (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reach a consensus for this article, please stop attacking other users. It's a "content dispute", not "vandalism". Vandalism is when someone does knowingly an unconstructive edit. Just because you disagree with his edits, it doesn't mean he's a vandal. bogdan (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless list - not at all[edit]

I have no opinion on the article in general, but the list is totally useless. There are probably billions of people in the world who like England, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who like England are famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. There's no way to rank people based on their love of England (to decide who should and shouldn't be on the list), and nobody is ever going to think "Gee, I wonder which people like England, let's look it up in Wikipedia". Zocky | picture popups 10:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very odd to have a list of a category without examples. Like having an article about modern artists without citing any prominent ones. The concept "modern artist" remains abstract until we can follow up about who modern artists are and what they do, the same for anglophiles, the same in many categories. The examples fill out the concept - its diversity in time and space, its differing aspects - in a useful and illuminating way.Jagdfeld (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm an American living in England, does that make me an Anglophile? I don't think I am but it would be easy for someone else to claim I was because I live here. Doug Weller (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't make you an Anglophile. Someone claiming it would need to provide some sufficient evidence in an acceptable source. Jagdfeld (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I have nothing against making a list of people who have called themselves anglophiles, but if they are called by others, it's just the POV of that person. Not to mention that most of the references are not "reliable references", but simply some sites and in some cases, the text is misunderstood or misinterpreted.

For example, in the case of Lovecraft:

the reference is this site: http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ewb_10/ewb_10_03998.html

[...] interrelated roles which he sometimes facetiously, sometimes tenaciously assumed: the Anglophile gentleman who upheld the most staid conventionality and lamented the "tragic rebellion of 1775-83," the Nordic warrior who reveled in dreams of adventure and blood, the proud citizen of the Roman Empire, the anemic decadent immersed in every form of human and metaphysical abnormality, the frigid scientist seeking truth by the strictest criteria of logic, the generous and brilliantly humorous friend, the xenophobic admirer of Mein Kampf who evolved into a quasi-socialist supporter of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal [...]

If Lovecraft was an anglophile according to this site, then he's also a Nazi (should we add him to list of Nazis?) and a Roman citizen as well (we should add him to List of Ancient Romans, too!)... bogdan (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute[edit]

I have fully protected the page again for 5 days. Please discuss changes here. (If you reach a consensus, feel free to use {{editprotected}}.)

After this, any revert is likely to be considered disruptive. Please try and remain civil. Ian¹³/t 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reasons for removing the list have been outlined adequately above by User:Francis Tyers, User:Bogdangiusca and User:Zocky. If there are no counter-arguments for inclusion, then the stable version will be restored tomorrow. - Jimmy Hammers (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are a sock puppet (of whom?). Francis Tyers, Bogdanguisca and (perhaps) Zocky all seem to be friends acting in concert. Francis Tyers used to claim knowledge of Romanian, now Bogdanguisca does. It is all odd. Your only edits on topics other than "philes" was August 13, the day you were warned by Ian13 about disruptive editing and creating an account just to create trouble. You are continuing to create trouble. The clear consensus of editors is that the list should remain. It would be very odd to have a list of a category without examples. Like having an article about modern artists without citing any prominent ones. The concept "modern artist" remains abstract until we can follow up about who modern artists are and what they do, the same for anglophiles, the same in many categories. The examples fill out the concept - its diversity in time and space, its differing aspects - in a useful and illuminating way. Jagdfeld (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that grouping Madonna and Lovecraft together fills out the concept of what an anglophile might be? I'd have to disagree. - Jimmy Hammers (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is and has been a consensus here.Londo06 12:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which definition of consensus is being used here -- I looked around and Wikipedia seems to have a policy on consensus (WP:CONS), that this article in its current state does not fulfill. - Jimmy Hammers (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Hitler, an anglophile?[edit]

If we keep the list, we should add a very important anglophiliac figure: Adolph Hitler, according to this book: Beacon Across Asia: Biography of Subhas Chandra Bose, By Subhas Chandra Bose, Sisir Kumar Bose, Narayan Gopal Jog, Published by Orient Longman, 1998 ISBN 8125010289 page 117:

In spite of his openly expressed bitterness and enmity for the British, Hitler was in reality an Anglophile and the total destruction of the British Empire was to him not at all a desirable for the future".

bogdan (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that you are presuming to edit when you cannot even spell Adolf. Perhaps stick to Romanian? But it can be listed if properly sourced.Jagdfeld (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

A alert for User:Jagdfeld has been filed here. - Francis Tyers · 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francis/Jimmy. Reporting yourself for vandalism and sock puppetry would be helpful. Jagdfeld (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Anglophilia?[edit]

I was a bit surprised of the title of this article. I was expecting either Anglophile or possibly Anglophilic. Instead, the title - but not the introduction - refers to a rarer abstract noun. Compare this with the list Anglophilia#See also, where seven other kinds of -philes are enumerated.

I wonder if the difference in treatment depends slightly on an anglocentric point of view. In the name of a global one, and of consistency, I'd suggest moving the article to Anglophile. JoergenB (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented my question, which I take as an indication that no one seriously objects a move. The article still is about the concept Anglophile in the first place. Cf. the first sentence, and the quoted first occurrence of the word, in the context '...a "thoroughly Anglophile journal"' (my emphasis)! The OED reference is to Anglophile; in that OED item, the derivation Anglophilism is mentioned, but not Anglophilia. Anglophilia is only mentioned in a part of the section Anglophilia#Definition.
Thus, I'll move the article to the name Anglophile. If anyone disagrees and moves back, I'd appreciate a motivation here -- and preferrably an overhaul of the article content, making it to correspond to the old title. JoergenB (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...which however was easier said than done; the page is seemingly protected against moves by non-sysops...:-( JoergenB (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition[edit]

Defining an Anglophile may be a bit difficult. To say that persons who opt to live in England are Anglophiles is giving a very blurred and erroneous definition. There are immense migrants in England, but to call them Anglophiles would be the very negation of this term. Many of them by culture, language, behaviour, attitude, mental reflexes and ambitions are not Anglophiles. However, it is a fact that persons who get to experience the English social and cultural environment for sometime, literally want to stay put and bask in its soft halo for the rest of their lives. This is especially true of persons who have migrated from third world nations, including East Europe. But again this is only an infatuation caused by their relative experience, vis-à-vis what they lived through in their home nation.

A way to gauge an Anglophile would come by a combination of many factors. The first and off course the foremost would be the love for the English language, in its finest form (not the varying versions all around world, all corrupted by requirements of the native vernaculars). A committed anglophile must stand by the English language, whatever may the stress of immediate local requirement. This commitment should different from the shallow display of command over the English tongue, to assuage the needs of social prominence (especially in non-English nations).

Beyond these, come the other minor items, none of them of insignificance.

A love for English literature and classical authors, including Sir Walter Scott, R L Stevenson, Oscar Wilde, Somerset Maugham, Charles Dickens and such others.

An understanding of English historical contributions, including the merits of British colonialism. The positive elements of British monarchical and social systems. The essential difference between many language systems, which are hierarchical and have diabolical content of disabling/despoiling human divinity, and the liberal mood of English communication software (language).

British contribution to culture, social organisation and social communication. Elements of English behaviour, gestures, postures, ethical codes, and moral standards, in terms of innate individual honesty, fair-play, and sense of honour (as different from the term respect used in many other countries).

Understanding of British contribution to culture.

British contribution to political science; especially the understanding that the concept of modern democracy is actually an innate part of English communication system. And that its modern apparition in most nations are directly related to British endeavours.

British contribution to science, including the fact that it was Isaac Newton who made the foundation of modern science. This itself is connected to the liberal intellectual ambience in English.

British contribution to geographical discoveries, and knowledge of British discoverers.

Well, ultimately it is not the knowledge or lack of it that determines or defines an Anglophile, but the courageous spirit of love for English and its attributes.

There is much more to be said about this theme, including jurisprudence, modern management systems, films, the church, great leaders, orators, spirit of adventure and much more.

But then living in England and loving it, necessarily does not mean an infection of ‘Anglophilia’. At best, it is patriotism, and worst opportunism. Moreover loving English, and at the same time living anti-English social communication systems is not an apt definition of an Anglophile. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I can't resist pointing out that only two of the five authors you mention were English (Dickens and Maugham)--Scott and Stevenson are among the most famous Scottish writers, and Wilde was Irish. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "anti-English social communication systems" might be but I think Ved from Victoria is trying to expand the concept of Angophilia into all sorts of tangential (and probably controversial) areas. A more relevant question, and a thorny one, is the on hinted at by the last commenter: can Angophilia refer to a love of English-speaking culture or institutions? Flapdragon (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Second Chance: Two Centuries Of German-speaking Jews in the United Kingdom edited by Werner E. Mosse, Julius Carlebach, Gerhard Hirschfeld, Aubrey Newman, Arnold Paucker, Peter Pulzer , J.C.B. Mohr, London, 1991 page 135.
  2. ^ Watt, D.C. How War Came, London: Heinemann, 1989 page 73
  3. ^ When Britain and France nearly married, summary of Document's "A Marriage Cordial", first broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in January 2007. The document treated was DO 35/5264.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglophilia&oldid=1198746628"