Talk:Anglosphere

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File:Anglospeak(800px).png is outdated/wrong.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]). 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 ([2]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)