Talk:Anti-English sentiment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Expansion of article

I agree with the view that listing historic events that are sometimes cited by anglophobes as 'justification' for anglophobia need to be included, and with citations. This article has a long history of listing 'reasons for anglophobia' without establishing a context that discusses the nature of the bias or the gross oversimplification of history that underlies them. The french version of this article also gives a list of 'reasons' for anglophobia, which I have resisted translating and adding until I have investigated the context. This articles section on France needs looking at again, it is too vague.

I also think there is another dimension that needs looking at: the antipathy towards english culture that sometimes arises (this is the other side of anglophobia, it is not only an antipathy toward the English as a people). Sometimes anglophobia manifests itself as a desire to purge the influence of english culture from a given country. Anglophobia, as with other forms of nationalism, to me seems to arise in part form a need to define one counry in relation to an 'other', which lies at the heart of a lot of prejudice and conflict. I think it would help to add a section on this, something like 'Indirect Anglophobia' or 'Cultural Anglophobia' and would welcome discussion on its possible content. It may need to touch on the the issue of anglophobia as it interacts with other issues, like Europhobia and Anti Anglo Saxonism. I propose to draft a new section and place it on my talk page for comment before incorporation into the main article. Starpol 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article is all wrong. We need to remove all of the headings by state, this article is about Anglophobia, not about how different countries see England and the English, nor is it a history lesson. If we are going to talk seriously about Anglophobia, then we need to discuss things like causes etc. One cause can be considered historical competition, so we can use France as an example, with the claims of the Plantagenet Kings of England to the French crown leading to long wars and mutual antipathy etc, this has mutated into an antipathy towards the English people, due to the actions of the English monarchy, etc. This is a good example of a possible cause of racism against England. Another cause is colonialism. So what I am suggesting is that we structure the headings by causes of Anglophobia.

• In the introduction some explanation that before the 1920s/30s it was common to refer to the United Kingdom as England, and that it is still common outside of the UK, so that Anglophobia has come to mean hatred of the British as much as of the English.
• First heading Historical enemies
  

Discussion of causes of ethnic hate due to historical wars, the conflict between the Plantagenets and the French Kings in the Hundred Years' War is a good example. How these long conflicts between monarchs mutated into mutual suspicion by the respective peoples. I think it should also be noted that the French and the English rather like each other as well. Could mention the Spanish Armada etc, but that this seems not to have lead to any great antipathy between the two populations.

• Second heading Percieved oppression
  

Discussion of how English people are often portrayed/percieved as having oppressed the Irish/Welsh/Scottish minorities in the United Kingdom, for example the Welsh Not. I would stress that we need a ballanced account, especially the fact that little significant oppression is historically recorded, with most oppression being class related and not race related. But it is worth mentioning that nationalist movements is Ireland/Wales and Scotland encourage and exagerate the perception of oppression by English people, thereby feeding Anglophobia.

• Third heading Colonialism
  

Discussion of racism by the British Empire, for example the Massacre of Amritsar, which has mutated into anglophobia in some former colonies.

• Fourth heading. Asserting independence

Discussion of competition between former colonies and the UK, the competition between Australia and England in the Ashes is a good example, as is the whinging pomms epithet. Has much to do with asserting cultural/national independence.

These are my thoughts, any comments? Alun 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, fewer sections with their own thematic focus. I wonder whether the first section could be called something like Rival Powers and Empires, as it could take in the past animosity between England and Spain, if sources can be found to discuss this, looking at Anglophobia past and present. Anglophobia in the US existed/exists in various forms and they are obviously considered an ally, but could be discussed in the first section looking at the war of independence and WWII, for example. Would the second section only look at the UK? In some ways this would be helpful, as it shows the different types of anglophobia and the fact that it is interchangably directed towards the English or British. The issue of 'Opression' would crop up in a lot of areas, not just UK though of course, so will need a bit of thought. I am a bit cautious about calling the section Perceived Opression though - I see what you are getting at, but it could be considered un-NPOV, denying that opression ever took place, the counter argument that the opressors are the rulling classes will need making with cited sources. The last section could possibly broaden out under the title of 'Post-Colonial National Identity and Anglophobia', and the rivalries that are seen, as you say, between former colonies and England/UK, and some of the jingoistic foundation myths in the far right US view of Britain.Starpol 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes all of the points you have made are very good. I was thinking in terms of US War on Independance being a reaction to Colonialism, and also some of the info about Quebec that was here before. Rival Powers and Empires is a good heading. With the Percieved Oppression section I was thinking about modern nationalism on all of the Islands of the archipelago, but maybe it's too POV to entitle it Percieved Oppression, I'm sure we could call it Insular anti-English nationalism or something like that. What I'm trying to do is to get away from various anglophobias in different countries, and to concentrate on the reasons for this anglophobia, in many countries the motivation is similar, for example US/India/Quebec etc these can be seen as due to some form of oppression, in Australia/US (again)/South Africa it can be percieved as an attempt to self define as a new nation by distancing from the source nation etc. I hope that by expressing it this way we can move from a it's their own fault tone to a more these are the various causes style. Thanks for the support. I'll wait a bit longer and if there's no real opposition to the change I'll go looking for some sources and I'll have a go at a rewrite when I get some time, unless anyone else wants to have a crack? Alun 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some interesting points have been made in this section, but they miss and exemplify the problem that much of the article, and the suggestions on this page, are at best speculation or an attempt at original interpretation or synthesis. That's not what Wikipedia is about. We ought to base the article on published surveys and analyses, and if we can't find them, then the article should be restricted to a dictionary-like definition, with references to related material. Countersubject 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but at the moment it's just a list of the history of anti-British feeling in various different countries. We just need to verify the causes of anglophobia and cite them here. At the moment the article is a mess and has no logical form or structure. Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alun 05:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Wikipedia a publisher of original thought (oops - I'm trading slogans!). We need to to begin with a definition of terms, then follow up with a verifiable summary of published research that expands on that definition. Discussion of structure without this focus puts the cart before the horse, and will do nothing to discourage the kind of opinionated rant the article and its discussion page have suffered from. And if a paucity of published material won't support the proposed structure, then so be it. Sometimes less is more. Countersubject 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, indeed I had stated that we should look for sources to support a restructuring. I also agree with the less is more philosophy. Some articles need to be short, this may well be one of them. One of the problems is that often when people come accross a short article they seem to feel the need to add extra content. There also seem to be quite a few people with an axe to grind that simply want to turn this article into a list of bad things those naughty British people have done over the centuries. What I'm most concerned about is removing the present by country structure. It does nothing for the article, and produces the sort of article that looks like it was written by a child for school homework, looks as bad as Football hooliganism. Alun 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

France

This section doesn't tell us anything about the extent or nature of Anglophobia in France. Instead, it begines with a generalisation, then goes on to list a catalogue of reasons why the French should dislike the English. Its only value is as an example of Anglophobia. Countersubject 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this true of the whole article? Alun 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

By and large. But the France section is a particularly egregious case. Countersubject 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the whole article needs a rewrite, or possibly even redirecting to -phob-, the more I think about it the more I think that this article has little encyclopaedic value. What should we do, just define it? But that's what wiktionary is for, here is anglophobia on wiktionary, says it all really. The rest is just a stream of excuses and/or invective against the English people, usually because of what the state has done rather than the people. What I mean is that this article has become a place for racist people to make excuses about why they hate the English, rather than a proper article about the subject, but I think the subject is covered by articles such as Xenophobia or Racism. Alun 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

I'm not sure I should mention this, but should/is Mel Gibson mentioned here? I've seen news sources and one academic article on anglophobia mention him.--T. Anthony 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he should, there is a list of notable Anglophiles on Wikipedia so why not one for Anglophobes? 80.2.87.189 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up the article. Still needs a lot of work. - Francis Tyers · 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Countersubject 13:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup removed a lot of Anglophobia and un-sourced generalisation. The main remaining difficulty is the France section, which is still long on accusation and short on detail and balance. Unless this is rectified, I propose we delete it. That would be a shame, because I'd like to know more about the history of French ill-feeling towards the British. Countersubject 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it seems mostly made up. Hardly anything in the realms of a real "phobia". - Francis Tyers · 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Countersubject: nice piece of editing. Are you sure about removing the USA? It seemed to have pertinent material, but I have no intention of reverting. Politis 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any well known aglophobist or those who are anti english? I know the book The Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the World is likely Anti-England Phu2734 08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The writer of that book is an idiot, he's one of those Americans who can't tell the difference between 'Britain' and 'England'. He claims that global warming, poverty, the Iraq war, the holocaust, Stalin's purges and the Vietnam war were a direct result of the existance of the British and that we should pay $31 TRILLION in compensation to the rest of the world. I once tried reading that pile of dogshit that he calls a 'book' (it's more of a collection of infantile rants) I put it in the bin when he claimed that we invented the machine gun, of course in his retarded mind America is as pure as the driven snow, he tried pinning every crime the United States has committed on Britain (Like the illegal war in Iraq, apparently we're responsible because the League of Nations carved up the Ottoman Empire and gave us Iraq, rather unsurprisingly he ignores the fact that the US put Saddam in power in the first place)-User:TashkentFox 16:23, 25 December 2008

Can Anglophobia include other Anglo-Saxons?

There are other Anglo-Saxons in the world than the natives of England. There are Anlo-Israelists, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australians, Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-South Africans, Anglo-Indians, Anglo-Burmese, Anglo-Malays, Anglo-Pinoys, Anglo-Egyptians, Anglo-Kenyans...would they also be included in the prejudices of Anglophobes?

I'm not sure that this works. The natives of England are English, not Anglo-Saxons. Enzedbrit 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland?

I think that this page definitely needs an Ireland section. The three countries mentioned here are not as Anglophobic as Ireland is. I shall see what I can find. Epa101 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah it should come under the scotland section due to the fact that anglophobia in ireland is familier to that in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.197.61 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No-one hates the English more than we do in Ireland. A lack of a section is almost an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.155.182 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-British Sentiment

I might have missed it but there doesn't seem to be an article on anti-British feeling. This is a sentiment which sees dislike of the British rather than simply the English. Anglophobia really only covers anti-English feeling. It is often applied wrongly when what is meant is Britophobia. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"No-one hates the English more than we do in Ireland. A lack of a section is almost an insult".

Oh dear, how sad, never mind :-) 160.84.254.241 (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's faulty logic, most other articles regarding negative sentiment towards nation-states have used the topic of the nation rather than a subdivision of the nation. Just because some troll feels contrary doesn't make justification, remember no original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.205.73 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Australianism

Anti-Australianism links to this article. Why? Xt828 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Australian Wikipedians are somewhat insistent that either no one in the world dislikes Australia or that talking about Anti-Australianism is just patriotic whining. Now obviously there are people in the world who dislike Australia and Australians likewise some interested in the subject may not be Australian at all. So I fixed it.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It got undone. Still I redirected it to Foreign relations of Australia as people are pretty insistent it stay a redirect.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination?

Can I ask why this is in the Discrimination template? If this is meant to be some kind of discrimination or hatred of English people then maybe it deserves its place, but what if someone simply hates the idea of being British, due to its long history of imperialism and colonialism, and perhaps its current policies? There are surely some people who are not "prejudiced" against English or British people, but rather detesting their country as a whole. Surely it could be suggested, for example, that Lenin and Stalin hated "Russia", but certainly not all the Russians living in the society (Hence, they renamed Russia the Soviet Union and scrapped most of Russia's previous traditions, including the Tsar).--HandGrenadePins (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wales

Wales and its Welsh population has had a long history of Anglophobia since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 also known as the "Acts of Union", passed by the Parliament of England, annexing Wales to the Kingdom of England, whereby the Welsh language and Welsh law was abolished and were replaced by the English language and English law. Especially Section 20 of the 1535 Act made English the only language of the law courts and that those who used Welsh would not be appointed to any public office in Wales.

An effect of this language clause was to lay the foundation for creating a thoroughly Anglicised ruling class of landed gentry in Wales, which would have many consequences.

Throughout the centuries with the suppression of the Welsh language in almost every public sphere, including in schools, the Welsh speaking population was gradually Anglicised and reduced to a linguisitic minority of roughly 20 percent of the total population of Wales today.

Some Welsh feel that their language and culture is threatened by the majority English-speaking population of Wales and by neighbouring England and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Northern Ireland?

There should be Northern Ireland section in the Anglophobia page. Due to its separate and very complicated history, a Northern Ireland section related to the Ireland section but separate from it should be put in as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

The Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas issue has been a very important issue throughout Argentine history and is a major source of Anglophobia among the Argentine people.

Falkland Islands self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom, but have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833. In pursuit of this claim in 1982, the islands were invaded by Argentina, precipitating the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of Argentine forces.

Argentina claims the islands relentlessly but has vowed to attain the islands through peaceful means, but no negotiations have taken place after the war.

Note: Added Argentina because the Falkland Islands issue is a major source of anglophobia that directly affects the relations between Argentina and the UK.

Saguamundi

Rewrite

This article is nothing more than a list of why other peoples ought to resent the English. What would we say if the article on antisemitism was a list of historical reasons why people shouldn't like the Jews? Xenophobia is xenophobia: it is racist and absurd to punish the members of a nation for something that their nation did before they were born, regardless of the romantic, hollywoodised, faux-leftish garment it is cloaked in. I'm not really sure it even makes any sense to blame them for something their government did while they were alive. How much control do you have over your government?

Rather than validating the feelings behind this particular form of xenophobia, we should look at the consequences of this prejudice. What foreign policy decisions of other countries have been influenced by Anglophobia? Can we give examples of people who have been discriminated against or physically attacked for being English? (the Ireland section makes a good start there). How widespread is Anglophobia in various countries? BillMasen (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Anti-British sentiment

In my opinion, much of the content of the Anti-British sentiment article could very easily be included here. In the long-run, anti-British sentiment is very often anti-English anyway, and so therefore I see little point in keeping Anti-British sentiment as a seperate article. Crablogger (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Britain and England are not the same thing, as Welsh and Scottish nationalists are (rightly) keen to remind us. I think it is very doubtful that, for example, a phobic Afrikaner would bother to distinguish Welsh, English and Scottish identities in his antipathy (whereas a phobic Irish-American might well do so). Just because many foreigners misuse England and Britain as synonyms, does not mean that we have to reify this mistake.

And where would this leave the discussion of Anglophobia from within Britain? Welsh people in particular are sometimes in favour of the Union but phobic towards the English at the same time. BillMasen (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there is also anti-Welsh sentiment and anti-Scottish sentiment in the world, but surely those sentiments can be placed on seperate pages rather than place them collectively as anti-British? On the whole, anti-British sentiment is essentially a mixture of Anglophobia, anti-Welsh sentiment and anti-Scottish sentiment. If that is the case, then the areas concerning Anglophobia within the Anti-British sentiment article can be merged to here, and the anti-Welsh or -Scottish sentiments can be given seperate pages. Crablogger (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who isn't a Scottish nationalist but a proud Scotsman nonetheless, I would fundamentally disagree with this proposal. Scotland is not England, the premise for the merger is down to general ignorance of the difference. Perpetuating and enshrining ignorance in the proposed merger is a retrograde step imho. Justin talk 07:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I have already stated that England, Scotland and Wales are seperate entities, hence why I suggested above that seperate entries concerning anti-Scottish sentiment and anti-Welsh sentiment be created rather than mix them with Anglophobia in the Anti-British sentiment article. Crablogger (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But anti-Britishism isn't a mixture of anti- those three identities. It's anger directed at Brits in general, because of some real or perceived wrong committed by the British state. I agree with Justin that there is no reason to side with popular misconceptions on this subject.

You've acknowledged that WElsh and Scottish are seperate entities from Britain. So is England. And logically speaking, if English is the same as British, and Welsh and Scottish are part of British, then Welsh and Scottish are part of English. A clear absurdity :)BillMasen (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A mistake on my part. Sorry. Crablogger (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's actually refreshing if someone notices what you are doing on WP. :) BillMasen (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"cultural integrity"

Is burning people out of their homes, slashing their tyres, and beating the living daylights out of them a effort to protect "cultural integrity"? That is certainly a point of view. Another point of view would be that of the genuine victims who have their homes wrecked. BillMasen (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I grew up in North Wales during that period and the number of incidents that would conform with your description is significantly less than muggings in London or Manchester during the same period. There is also a huge difference between being phobic about the English (which is what this article is about) and trying to prevent your local culture been swamped by people who don't understand it and are not interested in it. --Snowded (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to re-read and think about what you just wrote? "trying to prevent your local culture been swamped by people who don't understand it and are not interested in it." You may as well have added "they come here, they steal our jobs, won't learn the language". If you were talking about an ethnic minority, which effectively you are by the way, you would be condemned as a racist, hypocritical bigot. Bill makes a good point how "anglophobia" is used to justify such attitudes, its well-researched and sourced. As a Scotsman I am rather ashamed to admit I've seen exactly the same attitudes North of the border, perhaps you might think about how your nationalism is perhaps clouding your judgement on this issue. Justin talk 08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion but trying to make this a racist issue is a nonsense. A small fishing village, where all the local housing has been bought up by second homers, and the current generation have to move 20 miles away to find low cost housing. A similar area in Denbighshire where it is no longer viable to support a welsh speaking primary school. I could go on with many more. In each case the local people are entitled to protest the loss of culture without being accused of racism of "phobia". Its a mute point as to who is the ethnic minority here. --Snowded (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides of the coin there. Who sold their houses to "them" in the first place for one? Either way as Bill notes below it does not justify the use of violence. The example given by Bill was of English couple who'd moved to Wales, it wasn't a second home. With respect, the issue in Wales does have undertones of racism, to simply dismiss or ignore it is not acceptable. Whilst it is acceptable to protest over loss of culture or to promote Welsh culture, it is unacceptable to justify violence as "defending culture". I would suggest you take a moment's pause to reflect, your passions on the issue are all too obvious, is it not possible that they have clouded your judgement? Justin talk 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one is entitled to firebomb your house because they "are concerned about the loss of culture". If you can't grasp that simple truth, I don't know how else to put it. BillMasen (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were please withdraw that and apologise. --Snowded (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I think what Bill is trying to say here is that, at the end of the day, those attacks were Anglophobic. To quote a line from the film C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America: "What is [prejudice] to one is patriotism to another." Agreed that there is a difference between Nationalism and Xenophobia, but concerning this particular issue, the two have to a certain degree become intertwined. Crablogger (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the Meibion Glyndwr attacks on second, or holiday, homes were actually Anglophobic. Had any group of people moved en-masse into the areas where the indiginous culture and language was threatened, with little or no regard to the damage they were doing to an endagered way of life, the response would most likely have been the same. No difference if they were English, Spanish, Eskimo or Estonian. Daicaregos (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dai, I respectfully disagree with both your premise and your conclusion. The English have not been the only migrants to Wales and yet, as far as I know, they are the only ones whose houses were firebombed.

Secondly, even if the Englishness of the incomers was incidiental, it is still xenophobia if not anglophobia. I doubt very much if the Burnley rioters had a specific objection to Asians, as opposed to blacks/jews/gypsies. And yet we have no compunction about describing them as xenophobic.

If you want to argue that MG were less bad than the BNP/NF, I don't think I would dispute that. But just because their methods were less violent (for the most part) and their greivances less imaginary (for the most part), does not alter the fact that they viewed one type of person as not having the right to live in their country.BillMasen (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, may I ask who the other migrants to Wales were that you allude to? And where were those second, or holiday, homes located? Secondly, if you conclude that the attacks were xenophobic, rather than Anglophobic, self-evidently they should not be noted on this article. Thirdly, your assumption that Meibion Glyndwr viewed one type of person as not having the right to live in their country is incorrect (if you mean type = race). Those English incomers who integrated, or who acted with some sensitivity towards the culture they were joining, did not have their homes attacked. And fourthly, please adhere to talk page conventions by indenting your comments, thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The firebombing was of second homes and the vast majority were owned by people from England, there is no evidence that homes were targeted as part of an anti-English campaign. It was very clear that no first homes would be targeted (even if owned by someone from England). --Snowded (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it was part of an anti-incomer campaign, and the incomers, as you say, happened to be English. Unless we want to start an article called "xenophobic attacks against people who happen to be english", the correct place for it is in this article.

Suppose that Indians were buying out houses in the English countryside as holiday homes, and those houses were firebombed by angry locals. Do you think that anyone would fail to describe this as xenophobia? BillMasen (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not an anti-incomer campaign, if it had been then first homes owned by the English would have been targeted. It was a campaign against second/holiday homes. Interestingly there were also campaigns (although not with fire bombing) in Cumbria and Cornwall. --Snowded (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Those English incomers who integrated, or who acted with some sensitivity towards the culture they were joining, did not have their homes attacked" You're right. Muslim immigrants who dare to speak Arabic in public also deserve a kicking. Not.

"Secondly, if you conclude that the attacks were xenophobic, rather than Anglophobic, self-evidently they should not be noted on this article" Umm... no, they were xenophobic attacks against English people's houses. If I made the argument 'they didn't hate them for being english, they hated them for being foreigners', it would be ridiculous. I might as well say 'I'm not an antisemite: I don't hate Jews for being Jews, just for not being Christians'. If the target of their antipathy had been Spanish, they would be hispanophobic. If French, francophobic. Since it was the English, anglophobic.

In any case, do you seriously believe that, if it had been people from South Wales buying holiday homes, there would have been firebombs? During the housing boom, lots of wealthy people bought houses in English cities, which stayed vacant, in the hope they could sell them later at a higher price. And yet no firebombs!

Why do you think that was? Should we non-householding residents of English cities have upheld our cultural integrity with incendiary devices? If I did that, do you think I would be identified as anything other than an arsonist and a criminal? BillMasen (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're starting to get off the point. Can't we just say that opinion is divided regarding the firebombing of houses and leave it at that? Only, we're moving away from how to improve the Anglophobia article and moving towards what is essentially a debate, something forbidden on a Wikipedia talk page. Crablogger (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ There is far too much original research in this article, evidenced by Bill's comments above. The facts are very simple, the fire bombing was a campaign against second homes, No evidence has been presented that this was a result of Anglophobia. Bill has not addressed the issue that no FIRST homes were attacked, even if occupied by English people. --Snowded (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Meibion Glyndwr campaign is misrepresented both here and in the Guardian article from which most of the material has been lifted. It is very important to note that there was no targeting of English people as such, only of people buying homes in areas which were culturally foreign to them and where they did not intend to live. It could be cited as Anglophobic, but this is a perception rather than a fact. Deb (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a citation saying that it was an anti-English campaign (it wasn't hard). According to WP policy, if you want to dispute this in the article, you have to find a cite of your own. BillMasen (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read the books you reference in your campaign to vilify the Welsh? You added a reference here to your text on Meibion Glyndwr. The following paragraph begins 'Despite these acts of violence, Welsh nationalism is overwhelmingly a matter of nonviolent actions conducted through established political channels.' Even your own citations show your recent edits to have been biased and unbalanced. Also, you noted 'The English have not been the only migrants to Wales and yet, as far as I know, they are the only ones whose houses were firebombed.' in your post of 20:00, 16 May 2009. I asked you to tell me who the other migrants to Wales were that you allude to? And where were those second, or holiday, homes located? I do not appear to have had the courtesy of a reply. Daicaregos (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not on a campaign to villify anyone. I suggest that if you want courtesy from other editors, you refrain from personal attacks yourself.

I don't understand your question about other migrants. Nor does it bear on the article, but it seems you won't be happy until I respond. Are you saying that the only people who have ever immigrated to Wales are English? I never said that any other ethnic group had holiday homes in Wales, so I guess I'm missing your put-down, there.

The point in contention was not whether Welsh nationalism is violent, which I have never said. The point in contention was whether MG was motivated by an anti-English sentiment: that is what is supported by the reference.

I find your attitude truly puzzling. Nowhere in the article does it say that all nationalism is violent. Where did I say that all Welsh nationalism was violent? BillMasen (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, if, as you say 'The point in contention was not whether Welsh nationalism is violent, which I have never said.' why did you add the Meibion Glyndwr text to the article Welsh nationalism as one of your anti-Welsh list? Secondly, it was your post of 20:00, 16 May 2009, above, which stated 'The English have not been the only migrants to Wales and yet, as far as I know, they are the only ones whose houses were firebombed.' Check it out. Your statement appears to support your view that the attacks were Anglophobic, rather than due to Meibion Glyndwr's opposition to second/holiday homes. That is why I asked you to tell me who the other migrants to Wales were that you allude to? And where were those second, or holiday, homes located? It was not a put-down. It was a legitimate question, as I was simply asking you to substantiate your statement. Daicaregos (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"anti-welsh list"? Was that yet another personal attack or just a typo?

I added them because I believe that their attacks were anglophobic, as supported by the text I cited. The point is that MG were anti-English, regardless of whether they represented anyone else. And just to be clear:

1) MG were Welsh nationalists

2) MG were anglophobiic and violent

3) that does not mean, nor have I implied, that most Welsh nationalists are anglophobic or violent.

Your point seems to be that it was the fact that they were holiday homes which was objectionable; the fact that the owners were English was incidental. Is that a fair summary of your point?

As you know, England is a wealthier country than Wales. English people were the only ones in a position to buy holiday homes in Wales. Perhaps if people from South Wales had bought holiday homes in N. Wales and lived in them for 2 weeks a year, they would also have been firebombed. But that is completely unverifiable, and is WP:OR. I have already cited the opinion that the attacks were anti-English; if you believe that they weren't, you have to find a source which says so. BillMasen (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You still have not substantiated your statement 'The English have not been the only migrants to Wales and yet, as far as I know, they are the only ones whose houses were firebombed.' This is the central point of your contention that the Meibion Glyndwr attacks were Anglophobic, as opposed to being in opposition to second/holiday homes. For the third time, I ask you: please tell me who the other migrants to Wales were that you allude to? And where were those second, or holiday, homes located? Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I must be being stupid here.

1) Do you dispute that groups other than English people have immigrated to Wales?

2) I never said anyone else had holiday homes in Wales.

Suppose that no other "foreigners" had holiday homes in Wales (which is probably true). Do you think that proves MG were not anglophobic? Why?

You seem to believe that the foreign-ness of the owners was incidental. I have a citation saying they were anglophobic. Unless you can produce a response, I do not have to argue with you. BillMasen (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious that you are unable to substansiate your statement. That would be because it is not true, of course. Are there any other statements you simply made up to suit your arguments? Disgraceful. Why are you doing this? Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what statement you think I am making, apart from that MG was anglophobic. You are the one who is not able to substantiate that they blew up holiday homes owned by non-English people. People on this very page have said that the campaign was an effort "to protect cultural integrity" (in other words to keep English-speakers out). The idea that the burden is on me to prove that antipathy toward MG's targets is what motivated this gang of arsonists is laughable.

In 1993, MG threatened 13 English families living in Wales (permanently).http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=on27AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185&dq= English shopkeepers and hoteliers were also threatened http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n_vUx1TtH5AC&pg=PA306&dq= Are you still going to insist that MG's ideology was not "phobic", UKIP-type nationalism?

Your conduct is frankly disgraceful. When have I accused you of bad faith, instead of just being wrong? If you want to know "why I am doing this", I am expanding the article because beforehand it was nothing but a list of excuses for racism, as you can see for yourself in the page history before my edits. After all, the BBC, Hollywood et al. have put the horrible English on The Wrong Side Of History, haven't they? There was not the slightest consideration of how anglophobia impacts on the people experiencing it, who receive a kicking because of something their government did before they were born. BillMasen (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think you have cited a source which says the attacks were motivated by Anglophobia. You have cited material that English second homes were bombed (and some conservative MPs) but that is it. --Snowded (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"at the same time, cultural anti-English sentiment took an overtly political form in the 1980s with arson attacks conducted by the sons of Glendower". That is what is says on the very page which is linked. I don't know if I can make it clearer than that: MG was a political form of anti-English sentiment. Do I have to move the article to "anti-English sentiment" before you agree that it is relevant to the article? BillMasen (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have my support if you make that move as the title would then reflect some of the material that you are inserting. You are (as you have been on four articles now with this and other material) being very selective in what you quote. If you look at the rest of that paragraph it makes it clear that the primary motivation was economic. Wikipedia requires attention to WP:Weight something you are conspicuously neglecting. --Snowded (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about MG. It's an article about anglophobia. Shouldn't an article about spaghetti hoops mention heinz, even though they make other things as well? Is it relevant to mention in that article that they also make baked beans?

I am not in favour of the move, unless a consensus builds up around it. What exactly do you think it will achieve, what is the difference between anti-English sentiment (which is not a phrase in the dictionary) and anglophobia, and why would the examples given in teh article be an example of the former but not the latter? Moreover, other national phobias are given the suffix "phobia".BillMasen (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who raised the possibility of a move, I simply responded. "Anglophobia" will require stronger proof and better citations that you have achieved so far (I refer you to comments on your misquotes on the talk page of Welsh Nationalism. This article has additional problems since sections were removed on the grounds that they were any British rather than anti-English. That means that this is the article is only going to be about celtic issues. Given that there is nothing substantive left that is not on other articles maybe its time to delete the whole thing? --Snowded (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

changes

I have made a series of single edits to conform statements with citations. Please do no revert en mass. If that happens again I am going to take it back to the stable position of end of April --Snowded (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we calm things down please, threats to edit war do not help. Justin talk 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We ought to be discussing how to improve this article rather than discussing our own personal opinions. Crablogger (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not a threat to edit war, its the normal "If we can't agree lets go back to the last stable state". --Snowded (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorting things out

At the moment we have a series of issues (feel free to add some) that need to resolved in order to resolve content issues:

• The title of the article implies that only material related to a "fear" of the English should be included. However anything which can be interpreted as being anti-English is included.
• Being for something (preserving local culture) is beig interpreted as being against another ethnic group
• Sources are very poor, a few newspaper articles are being used and in several cases the "facts" supported are simply incidental to the story
• There are far too many quotations in the section on Wales
• There is a lack of material in other sections
• Some of the entries and comments are clear examples of WP:SOAP

Overall I would question the validity of the article per se. Renaming it to something like "Anti-English sentiment" might work, but as has been pointed out earlier for most of the world anti-English is the same thing as anti-British. Maybe its best to simply delete this article and move highly summarised versions of some of the material to other articles? --Snowded (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, being for preserving local culture is not being "intepreted" as being against another group. The excuse of "preserving local culture" is being used to excuse prejudice against English immigration. It wasn't simply second homes that were attacked, it was homes that were attacked for belonging to English people.

The sources are fine, they pass WP:RS.

Feel free to add quotes to Scotland; there should be plenty.

Your objection seem focused on WP:IDONTLIKE - as I've politely pointed out you're allowing your POV to cloud your judgement.

Thus far you seem to be engaging in low level edit war tactics to remove content you don't like. If you genuinely want to improve the article the best way to do it is engage with your fellow editors on the talk page and do not approach the issue in a confrontational manner. Its just counter productive. Justin talk 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Try and address the arguments made above rather than trying to dismiss views you don't like with accusations. The sources are in general peripheral references and odd news paper articles rather than authoritative sources. If we come back to fire bombings, in the latter stages of the campaign Conservative MP's did have their houses attacked (whether they were first or second homes and if mortgage payments were or were not claimed as expenses I leave open). However the campaign was clearly against second homes and the price pressure which meant local people could not buy houses in their local area. This problem is not unique to Wales and its not a "Phobia" --Snowded (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the point I'm making is you're trying to dismiss views you don't like with accusations; so please don't try and turn this around. Really all your behaviour is doing is creating tension and raising the temperature unnecessarily. I suggest you also look at the points made in the article; not all of those attacks were against second homes. The point you still don't get is that even if they were second homes or not; it does not justify the use of violence. Justin talk 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. BillMasen (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware that I have said that the use if violence was justified, I am questioning if they are a result of Anglophobia. I suggest the pair of you stop trying to attribute motives to people and spend some time addressing arguments. If you find that causes you to have a raised temperature of feel tense then I am sorry for you. I see an attempt has been made below to address some of the arguments which I will respond to when I have time (it may not be for a day or so). In the meantime I placed a notice at Wikipedia project Wales, we need more editors involved in this. --Snowded (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

* The title of the article implies that only material related to a "fear" of the English should be included. However anything which can be interpreted as being anti-English is included.

Well, Francophobia is used to mean antipathy towards French people. It may not be strictly correct in a Greek sense, but it's common English usage. Phobia isn't necessarily like arachnaphobia. If you badly want to move it to anti-English sentiment, fine, but will that address any of the contentious issues on this page?

* Being for something (preserving local culture) is beig interpreted as being against another ethnic group

If I am "for" white pride, doesn't that mean I'm against other ethnic groups? Even blatant racists like the BNP will obfuscate their racism into "appreciation for their own culture". Just because they didn't admit to being Anglophobic, that does not mean that they weren't.

It is totally possible, common, and praiseworthy to spread the Welsh language and promote the literature which exists in that language, without being "phobic". It is the issue of compulsion which makes it something else.

* Sources are very poor, a few newspaper articles are being used and in several cases the "facts" supported are simply incidental to the story

What? These are national newspapers and the BBC. You may not like them, but they are the standard on WP. Your feeble scare quoting of "facts" notwithstanding: if it's wrong, it's for you to provide a counter-citation. And the fact that the quotes are not always the main story in the article is totally irrelevant, in WP policy anyway. BillMasen (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

* There are far too many quotations in the section on Wales

Umm... What? You're annoyed that I'm giving too many examples of a phenomenon? Which you seem to think doesn't exist?

* There is a lack of material in other sections

Agreed. As Justin said: expand the other sections. It won't be hard to find more examples of Scottish anglophobia.

* Some of the entries and comments are clear examples of WP:SOAP

Now I've removed Bennet's speech, every single fact or sentence in that section is referenced: including senior Welsh politicians recognising the problem (one of them a "traitor" from PC).

The merger to Anti-British sentiment has already been considered and rejected. England has a seperate identity from Britain. Unless you want Wales to be considered a part of England, I suppose you would agree with that? BillMasen (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Greek word phobos, whilst meaning fear, is not actually used literally in modern times. As Homophobia, Islamophobia and various others I can mention testify, the suffix -phobia has come to mean a general antipathy towards a certain subject. Only where it is a medical condition such as Equinophobia or Acrophobia is it still used to describe a "fear". Anglophobia is a cultural bias, not a medical condition, and I personally think that eliminating this article in favour of "anti-English sentiment" is just plain superfluous. Crablogger (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wales

This page has many issues, but as a member of WikiProject Wales, that's the section I'd like to address. The opening line is untrue; Wales is as diverse a country as is England, with the different sections of the country having different opinions towards the language. The majority of the people in the south of Wales do not see any link between the loss of the Welsh language and anti-English bias, they enjoy the English language and are happy it is their first language.

The article lists reasons of why Wales may have bias against England, but there is no attempt to examine if these are true, misconceptions or if they are widely held by the modern populace. Sporting rivalries are few and far between. Due to the lack of games played between England and Wales, and the gulf in class between the two nations, association football has no real rivalry. I can't remember rivalry in snooker, darts, boxing, bowls, etc. In cricket, Wales is part of the English team, but there is no real anger towards this, just pride when a Welshman is selected. The rivalry in rugby union (not rugby, league is not well represented in Wales) is one of the only areas where a true rivalry exists, but it is Wales' national sport and there is hardly bloodshed in the streets when the two teams meet. The rivalry in rugby is pure pantomime.

It is easy to build lists of individual people stating their own racist or biased opinions, but that does not address the relationship between the two countries. There is also no attempt to look at the timeline between the countries. When Bennett made his speech (which I am sure pales into comparison to what other sporting captains of teams have said about England and vice-versa), there is no attempt to look at the events surrounding that period. Same could be said about the cottage burning. People use rivalries between countries for their own agendas when it suits them and when the time is right. Nationalistic sentiment from extremists should not be used to paint the viewpoints of an entire country, which is what I believe this article is doing; even if unintentionally. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are asking for 2 contradictory things. The paragraph you refer to (which I have just deleted, since it's proving contentious) was an attempt to provide some reasons for the existence of anti-English feeling, rather than implying that it was just random hatred. Bennet's speech was included as a convenient example of all these concerns. You've objected to it: "there is no attempt to look at the events surrounding that period". Well, that is what the previous paragraph was doing! As it stood, the paragraph did not imply that all of these greivances were held by all Welsh people at the same time. I didn't spend hours trawling for more sources because I thought that this was obvious and uncontentious. Clearly, I was wrong.

Secondly, this article is specifically about negative feelings towards the English, not the broader Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English. There is already an article for that, which describes as much anti-Welsh sentiment as anti-Engish. I pointed out that, for the most part, the relationship between these two countries is cordial and harmonious. Someone else said, quite rightly, that it's difficult to find citations for a broad feeling of contentment which is largely implicit. If we want to insert a sentence saying something like "most Welsh people are not anglophobic", that is very true and I would not remove it. However, if we couldn't find a citation (and we probably couldn't) then anyone would be within their rights to remove such a statement, even if true. BillMasen (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Other examples

Are there any other examples of articles such as this we can look at? That is to say a phobia against a nation? --Snowded (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamophobia, Hispanophobia follow a similar pattern to this article: phobia against the people. Francophobia deals mostly with resentment against the french state. Germanophobia is somewhere in between. BillMasen (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

It has been argued that Meibion Glyndŵr were anglophobic. The Guardian article quoted as a reference notes tht in "1989 Meibion Glyndyr [sic] declared that "every white settler is a target".", which shows that Meibion Glyndŵr were not anglophobic, but xenophobic. Consequently, I contend that Meibion Glyndŵr's activities do not belong in this article. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to compromise by including some information on Meibion Glyndŵr. Would everyone be ok with this?:

"Formed in response to the housing crisis caused by large numbers of second and holiday homes being bought by the English in Welsh speaking areas, the Welsh militant group Meibion Glyndŵr (English: the Sons of (Owain) Glyndŵr) firebombed 300 English owned properties in Wales, between 1979 and 1994. In 1989, the group also placed incediary bombs in several estate agents in Wales and England, and in the offices of the Conservative Party in London."

I am still concerned that WP:Undue weight has been given in this article by including so much material about Wales. There are currently 40 lines of text relating to the entire world's hatred of the English, 23 of those lines relate to Wales. Even bearing in mind that only those who have come into contact with the English are likely to have formed an opinion of them, I find it difficult to believe that any unbiased editor would only have been able to have come up with sources illustrating anglophobia shown by Welsh people. I propose, therefore, to delete everything in the Welsh section, other than the Meibion Glyndŵr paragraph (above), until such time as due weight is given to other peoples' hatred of the English. Views, please.Daicaregos (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Snowded's changes at Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English, which seem to me to hit the right balance in relation to MG's activities. It seems to me that, although MG's actions were undoubtedly largely motivated by positive cultural and economic motives, sufficient citations exist which mention an "anti-English" component for that to be given due (not very substantial) mention in this article (if this article is still found to be necessary at all). I have no objection to Daicaregos' proposed wording either. I agree that there is too much info in the current Wales section here, but that should be edited down rather than cut out completely. However, there are two related questions to be resolved - (1) Is there a need for this article at all?, and (2) if so, would it be better renamed "Anti-English sentiment" ? I could be tempted to support either option. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I would have very strong objections to that proposal. This is a work in progress that has been interrupted due to objections raised on the talk page. It may currently give undue weight to the Welsh section but that is down to the fact that progress has stopped while the edits are discussed. Justin talk 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please advise exactly what you base your supposition on? Daicaregos (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

May I point out the reams of tendentious argument above. QED. Justin talk 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You may do whatsoever you wish as long as you take the trouble to answer the question. The thing has not been demonstrated at all. Daicaregos (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah right the old you haven't answered the question, because I don't like the answer ploy. Good one, that always works. Justin talk 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. Would you care to share any plans you have for improving this article so that the Welsh section does not have undue weight? Daicaregos (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where people plan to take this article. Firstly material held to be anti=British not anti=English has been removed. Given that most of the world usines England to be synonymous with Britain that means the article is only going to reference the Irish, Welsh and Scots. The material on Wales is a hotch potch of quotations (originally misquotations) from a limited number of articles and all the material is already present in other articles. The stuff on Scotland and the Irish is non-existent, and if produced would simply have the same problems as the welsh entries. I suggest its merged into other articles unless someone comes up with a reason to keep it (Justin, I haven't seen anything in your comments which is a reason). --Snowded (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the argument for removing it, what is your reason for wanting to do so? You've cited undue weight but that doesn't apply in this case as the article was undergoing an expansion and the process has been halted by this discussion. If you feel the Scotland and Ireland sanctions warrant expansion (I believe they do) then fine. I also don't see the reasons for merging into the articles mentioned; there is no clear compelling reason to do so. You assert that I haven't supplied a reason, I have, I simply don't see any argument favouring your proposal. Justin talk 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅Actually the article was undergoing a contraction as I point out above with the removal of material that was considered "anti-British". There has been no reason why expansion could not have taken place while the section on Wales was sorted out. In the main "sorting out" has meant conforming the material to the citations and removing OR which does not bode well if the same editors plan expansion of other sections in the same way. Lets summarise the arguments to get rid of this:

• ALL of the Welsh material is already contained in Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English which is a better article, similar articles for Scotland could be created (if they don't exist). There are any number of article which deal with the Irish-England question.
• The title of the article in any normal use of English implies "a fear of" and none of the material in any way supports the name which is thus misleading
• The huge confusion over anti-British/anti-English has not been resolved (I am really tempted to take the article right back to the point before that was removed as it was never properly discussed)

Now can we have some answers to those arguments that than simple assertions? --Snowded (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Justin, I hadn't realised that you'd attempted a serious answer to my original question. You say that the article was undergoing an expansion. You haven't said though, what your plans (if any) are to make that happen. I had a look at the history of this article and see that your contributions to it amount to 11 edits, ten of which were reverts - vandalism, or things you happened to disagree with - and the other was adding a POV tag you'd removed only a minute earlier. I may be wrong (and I would welcome your explanation of how I am wrong, if I am), but it would seem highly unlikely that the source of this article's expansion will be you. The suggestion by another editor of adding Cornwall would only add two or three lines, at most. Unless you have been in touch recently with other editors, agreeing to expand the article (in which case it should be transcluded onto this talk page), your supposition that this article will be expanded enough that the Wales section is not given undue weight any time soon, is entirely baseless. This article seems to have been destroyed some months back, which is a shame, because I would have thought there is sufficient material from around the world to make it quite substansial. However, as things stand, the entire article amounts to 8611 bytes. Deleting all content relating to Scotland, Ireland, France and the rest of the world leaves an article of 5191 bytes. That is, the entire anglophobic content relating to countries other than Wales is 31%. This does not reflect reality. WP:Undue weight has been given in this article by including so much material about Wales. This cannot continue. As there seems no realistic prospect that the article will be expanded sufficiently to reduce the Welsh section's weight to reflect the reality of Wales' proportion of the world's anglophobia, please advise us of your proposal as to how this may be resolved. Daicaregos (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well a quick scan of the history page appears to show you have zero, nada, niente contributions to this article. So what are we to draw from that. Could I perhaps contrive an argument attempting to undermine your integrity in an ever so polite manner? Mmmm, a personal attack is still a personal attack whatever your choice prose you wrap it up in. Again the point I make is that others are looking to expand the article, you're looking to expunge material and have not provided a rationale for doing so. Instead of providing a rationale you're choosing to impugn the motives of others. And Snowded a response has already been provided are you planning on asking till you get an answer you like? Justin talk 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What conclusion should you draw from the fact that I have not contributed to this article? Well, perhaps that I am highly unlikely to contribute to it in the future. A similar conclusion to that which I drew for you. You say "Again the point I make is that others are looking to expand the article". This is the first time you have stated that it is others who are working on this article, rather than yourself. I have provided you with more than sufficient reason to delete the Welsh section. The Welsh section provides WP:Undue weight in this article. Do you honestly believe that Welsh people comprise over two thirds of the entire world's verifiable Anglophobia? Because that is the impression given to readers by this article, and it cannot be justified. Daicaregos (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is completely misleading for this article to show the entire anglophobic content relating to countries other than Wales of only 31%. For this to be a balanced article I would say that the Welsh section should make up no more than, say, 10% of the page. This would mean that if the current content of the Welsh section remained unchanged, the rest of the article would need to be expanded to around 47,000 bytes (Welsh-only content is currently 5191 bytes), to give an article comprising 52,000 bytes. Considering the entire article is currently 8643 bytes, while I admire the faith you seem to have in other editors, you will forgive me for being sceptical that this is likely to happen any time soon. The only realistic option is to drastically reduce, or remove the Welsh section. Daicaregos (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So you're highly unlikely to contribute but you wish to expunge a section. You suggested its expunged citing undue weight, the response you were given is hang on the article is being expanded. You then trawl through the edit history to attack the person saying hold on. I'm sorry but the impression you're giving is you're assuming every is behaving in bad faith, when an accusation of a POV motivation could equally well be levelled in your direction. What is wrong with waiting a while, why are you so apparently hell bent on removing it? Justin talk 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should someone make contributions to an article whose existence is being questioned? With some effort at least the material now matches the sources but that doesn't means its notable, or that the article has an value. IN respect of the "answers" Justin, as far as I can see the only one which has not been handled is the nature of the sources, so I will do that now. While national newspapers and the BBC are reliable, it does not follow that material extracted from those has Weight. One example is the Park Prison one where we have an article about a new prison which issues on technology with an incidental mention of anti-English feeling aginst prisoners. In another case a report mentions assertions by individuals that attacks on them were because they were English, but this is not even endorsed by the reporter, just mentioned. It all reads like a theory that has trawled for examples. The bulleted points I raised above have not been answered and it may well be time to propose this article for deletion. --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if I understand you correctly you don't like the article as in your perception its critical of the Welsh. Having failed in removing bits you didn't like, as they are supported by WP:RS and WP:V you're resorting to a bad faith accusation in the direction of the editors involved and further disruption by threatening to nominate it for deletion. Justin talk 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall?

I was wondering if it is worth mentioning some of the anti-English sentiment that has appeared in Cornwall in the wake of Cornish nationalism. I do recall one incident where Cornish nationalists removed signposts for English Heritage sites on the ground that they had the word English in the title, as well as several other incidents of a similar nature. I'll gladly find out references to such moments if this proposal meets with everyone's approval. Crablogger (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they really driven by what could reasonably be called "Anglophobia", or more by the constitutional questions around Cornwall? Whether they should be mentioned here depends, in my view, on what the references say, for example whether they specifically use terms like "anti-English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, similarly the welsh material is not about a "fear of English" it is about cultural differences (there is an article on that already) --Snowded (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the Welsh material includes people being called anti-English. I really don't know how much more I could produce in the way of clarity. BillMasen (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly a lot of your material is not about being anti-english, but about issues of rural housing & culture which are common to many areas around the world. The campaigners against second homes in Cumbria are English, and have similar motivations to campaigners in Wales, are they anglophobic? Most of the purchasers in Cumbria are English afterall. This is more an issue of class than it is of ethnicity. Secondly being anti-something does not mean that one has a phobia about it. The dictionary definition is "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something". --Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is: they were called anti-English. You may disagree but your personal opinion is not the currency of Wikipedia. You just have to find someone who disagrees. Can't you understand that?

I have to say I find your last sentence deeply disturbing. Is every other anti-national sentiment a "phobia", but anti-English sentiment is not an "irrational fear or aversion"? It also ignores the fact that the dictionary definition of Anglophobia fits exactly with the definition in the lead. BillMasen (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I wasn't saying that the Cornish had a "fear of English", I was saying that the more extreme end of the Cornish self-government movement could be construed as anglophobic. The English Heritage incident wasn't a case of Cornishmen being afraid of the English, they did it because they disliked the use of the word "English" on one of their signposts. Crablogger (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia

As I have previously demonstrated, antipathy towards every other people is termed something-phobia. There is no reason at all why this should differ.

I see no reason why the English should take all of the flak for sentiment directed against the British state, either in moral terms or in terms of WP policy.

Notwithstanding the personal attacks by some editors, they are correct that this article is insufficient in its treatment of anglophobia from outside the UK. I will make an effort to rectify this. BillMasen (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you appreciate the the Welsh section provides WP:Undue weight in this article. Given that you intend to expand the rest of the article so that it is sufficient in its treatment of anglophobia from outside the UK, please remove the Welsh section to your sandbox, where the article can be improved upon until it is balanced and unbiased. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, knock the whole thing back to a stub and then let Bill and anyone else see if they can develop it into an article in a Sandbox. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than putting the onus on one editor to develop a more balanced article in their own workspace, would it not be a clearer way forward to have a vote now on whether the article should be deleted as unnecessary? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy with that. --Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Should it be deleted, though? If such a thing as anglophobia exists, shouldn't there be a Wiki article on the subject? I must say, though, I would rather the article were deleted, rather than have the ridiculously unbalanced and biased article there is currently. It cannot remain as it is. Daicaregos (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is perfectly good coverage at Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English which at least shows balance and historical context. A similar article for the Scots and the Irish then everything else is anti-British Empire/Britain really. Possible exception of the French who had the good grace to support the Welsh, Scots and Irish in various rebellions over the year). --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading this, I'm genuinely undecided whether or not deletion would be the best way forward. As an alternative, would this rewording be better or worse? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If it stays then your sandbox version is at least balanced, happy to "vote" for that. --Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put that para in - if others object, we can discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Something called anglophobia exists, I'm sure. As such, an article on it should remain. Ghmyrtle's sandbox version has gone a long way towards balancing the previous grossly biased versions. However, it still seems as if Scotland and Wales form about 2/3 of the world's dislike of the English, which seems counterintuitive. If we receive assurances that content relating to parts of the world other than Scotland and Wales will increase substantially, while the Scottish and Welsh sections remain unchanged, I could live with that. Daicaregos (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop flinging terms like bias about please? Really that is a bad faith assumption and raising tensions unnecessarily. Justin talk 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you prefer to describe it? Daicaregos (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Properly sourced and verfied for a start. Flinging accusations of bias are unhelpful, they demonstrate bad faith. Justin talk 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you defending the previous version? My cat could see that article wasn't balanced. Daicaregos (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is your intention to simply raise tension? I see precious little else. Justin talk

Flipant remarks and a failure, and often refusal, to answer explicit questions (and a user name that would embarass anyone old enough to vote), have inflamed this apalling situation. You have refused to take our legitimate concerns seriously and haven't even agreed that there may be an issue. Reverting to a blatantly biased and unbalanced version is not an option. Move on. Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A user name that happens to be my real name, so now you're going to make school boy cracks about that as well? Do you think that perhaps for one second that I haven't met plenty of knobheads before who think they're funny. Grow up, this is now getting utterly childish. Justin talk 12:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Daicaregos should have read this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have, but I had not. If that really is Justin's name he has my apologies and my sympathy. It does not alter the fact that you have refused to answer explicit questions, often dismissing them with flipant remarks, and you have completely failed to even acknowledge that we may have a point, let alone to take our legitimate concerns seriously. Daicaregos (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but could we revert back to the previous version please, I think it is premature to introduce that paragraph at this stage. Justin talk 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Concensus is for the revision. Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but not it is not, consensus has not been established yet. Justin talk 11:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You have three editors against one (I would assume two) for the revised version. If you want to play the consensus argument then the article goes back to the state before all the material was added in on Wales --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, Snowded, but a thing called anglophobia exists in Wales, even if that is an uncomfortable reality for those who believe that nationalism in their country is universally "progressive" and benign. We are trying to move forward with a consensus to expand the article, not stubbify it. Rest assured that if the article is reverted to the list of excuses for racism which it was pre my edits, I will not let that pass.

seems that no-one else is willing to find material on anglophobia outside the UK, so I spose I will have to do that myself. I do this from a conviction, not that the welsh section "is too large" (which is an absurdity) but that the other sections are insufficiently detailed.

In terms of consensus, it would seem that user:crablogger does not support your suggestion going by his past comments. If I am wrong, I am sure he will say so.BillMasen (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Concensus is not a numbers game, I see the temperature is getting high, edit warring is not the correct way to make changes to the article. Again I would ask people to desist from pursuing a confrontational route and work to improve the article. Set the nationalist attitudes to one side. Justin talk 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then stop edit warring and address content issues rather than throwing unsubstantiated accusations at other editors--Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsubtantiated accusations - like screaming bias all the time? How about making schoolboy jokes about editor's names? There is a huge amount of bad faith here but its coming from the same quarter making accusations about everyone else. And its the quarter that is looking to censor the article because they perceive the article portrays Welsh nationalism in a bad light. Newsflash its the extremists who think that fire bombing is an acceptable thing to do and the apologists who excuse them who do that. Justin talk 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill, modifying the text re USA (which may or may not be concerned with "Anglophobia", though it's an interesting ref) doesn't then give you the "right" to add back in a deleted para re the Welsh, inclusion of which would again distort the weight given to the sentiments in Wales. That para is at Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English, which is linked from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia convention is very clear Bill, if agreement cannot be reached to changes then it goes back to the last stable version and dispute resolution then comes into play. Your use of sources needs attention as has been pointed out in several changes, and your recent revert on the definition did not even use the words from the source you were quoting. WP:Weight is important here, it does not support a string of quotations just because you can find the odd newspaper article. I appreciate that you do this from conviction, I think that may be part of the problem. --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a stable version until certain people waded in in screaming bias, bias, bias. Equally people could point out tha the Welsh nationalist sentiment you keep expressing is the problem here. Your objection appears to be little more than I don't like it, I want it removed, now, now, now. Justin talk 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Address content issues not other editors --Snowded ^TALK 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to decide what the last "stable version" was? I, and it seems other editors approved my actions, decided that the article was woefully inadequate.

Rather than continually threatening to revert to the racism-exculpatory list, will you help me to expand the sections on other countries? Against my better judgment, I have allowed the Wales section to be significantly cut down already. BillMasen (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok that's a deal. Can we agree on countries and how to handle the English/British bit? South Africa for example is interesting, they tend to use English when they talk about the concentration camps, but mean British. --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it that you've offered to help in expanding the article - its a more productive use of effort. I hope we can put the spats above behind us and move on. Justin talk 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

People will start addressing content issues when you stop making repeated bad faith accusations against other editors. I started off with a simple polite request to stop using words like bias - it demonstrates a bad faith assumption and its impugning the motives of other editors. The response to that polite request was a series of posts that have upped the temperature unnecessarily culminating in an offensive school boy comment. To be blunt I would say practise what you preach. Justin talk 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bias" is legitimate comment in respect of content. I await your contributions to content with citation and/or if you think other editors are not playing by the rules for you to demonstrate that with specific examples. --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree, if you describe a piece of content as biased you're effectively labelling the author has biased. It merely elevates temperatures unnecessarily. Justin talk 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. It is impossible to call the content of a book or a magazine biased without accusing the original author(s) as biased in turn. QED. Crablogger (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the discussion is about the content, its not a waving of "your a nationalist therefore you don't like" this type statements. Eitherway, lets try and move this forward. --Snowded ^TALK 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of WP:Undue weight is that it leads to bias. Assume an article on say, great skiers. Your average reader looks at the article and sees the article list ten skiers from Norway, ten from Sweden, ten from France, 35 from Canada and 35 from the USA, with all the skiers referenced. This average reader is pretty likely to think that the best skiers come ffrom north America. Some do, but not 70% of the world's greatest skiers come from north America. No one need be questioning the neutrality of the references to say that the article is biased. Please read WP:Weight (this is its first line: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The content of this article is biased because the vast majority of the examples of anglophobia noted have been selected as being from only one country (or possibly two). It would help if this were acknowledged to be an issue. Daicaregos (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded. People would not make so-called "your a nationalist therefore you don't like" type statements if you hadn't attempted to excuse the actions of Welsh Nationalist groups in fire bombing English owned homes. Being a Scotsman I'm well aware of some who have a deep seated hatred of the English and I have to admit I do enjoy a certain amount of Schadenfreude when the English get trounced at rugby or football. Your own statement provided the stimulus for that response. Equally to then go on to demand that content is removed, then threatening to nominate the article for deletion all appear to a neutral observer to be an attempt to expunge material you didn't like. So take a deep breath take a moment and perhaps rethink the impression you may have given to others. I'm happy to move on as I've already indicated. But I still make the point that screaming bias at people is not an effective way to move on.

@Daicaregos. You can take your hollow "apology" and your "sympathy" and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. I now include you in the same category as the knobheads of my youth with their "spic bastard" and "cunt" taunts. As far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't have the moral courage to apologise when they overstep the mark is beneath contempt. Your comments I therefore place in the category of utter bunk. Justin talk 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Think you've lost it, bach. You say "As far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't have the moral courage to apologise when they overstep the mark is beneath contempt." and "You can take your hollow "apology" and your "sympathy" and shove them where the sun doesn't shine." Looks like you accept that I apologised, so what's the problem. You seem to be using your unfortunate name as part of your argument. That's pretty sad. Following which you've used the argument that because I thought your username was made up therefore everything I've said is nonsense. A classic, and erroneous, ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should say that your username is your real name on your homepage, then that mistake couldn't be made again. Once again, I apologise for not knowing your username was your real name. It does not, however, diminish my argument. Please acknowledge the issues. Daicaregos (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Grow up. You didn't apologise, clearly have no intention of doing so and after two opportunities anything you do say will ring hollow. In 2 years on Wikipedia no-one has seen fit to resort to such childishness. Justin talk 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please read WP:GF then read my actual comments. My argument was that the fire bombings were not motivated by fear of the English but by a desire to preserve local housing stock at reasonable prices as well as other cultural reasons. I did not justify fire bombing and twice made that point explicit when you threw accusations before. You are making a very serious accusation and have repeated it so I suggest you apologise then we can all forget about it --Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I will apologise for making a poor choice of words, the point I was trying to make is that your comments could easily be miscontrued not to accuse you of supporting terrorists. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. Justin talk 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted Justin, and thanks --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-British Sentiment

A lot of content was removed to anti-British sentiment really does belong in this article. For example I've always associated POM with the English not the Scots or Welsh. Similarly Argentines confuse British/English (which I hate with a passion), they blame the English for the Falklands War not Britain as a whole. Personally I'd like to see a lot of that material returned to this article which would at least balance the concerns of undue weight? Justin talk 10:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you amend the lede then I think that is a good idea, the dictionary has anglophobic as covering the British as well --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In practice, 'Anglo' is used in many contexts to refer to the United Kingdom not England alone, see for example the Wikipedia article on Anglo-American relations with a cheerful picture of a Scottish-born Prime Minister chatting to the US President. I don't believe that is, as this article suggests, inaccurate - simply evolving usage. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think (and this was the outcome of the previous discussion) that we should not legitimate the ignorance of some non-Albionic (sic) commentators by conflating English and British.

Although it is sometimes forgotten, the British Empire (the primary source of anti-British feeling) was not solely an English concern. It was not until the 20th century that political parties arose in Wales and Scotland which seperated their identity from England, let alone from Britain.

Argentina has a famous football rivalry with England (per se) which has sometimes spilled into violence. That seems like a good place to start (as does football in general). BillMasen (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Style edits

I recently made some significant copyedits to the article to bring it into line with the Manual of Style's recommendations, including removal of self-reference in the lede (belongs in the hatnote), shifting of sections to avoid image bunching and a good deal of cleanup of the references. This was reverted, apparently on the grounds that it wasn't discussed. As far as I'm concerned these changes are orthogonal to the semantic squabbling on this talk page over the last month, so I don't see that there is any reason that the recent changes stand in the way of the current debate. These should be restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support those changes (which seem to improve things) but agree with G that we should get agreement here first. So I agree. --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy for you to clean up referencing. Happy to remove self-referencing in lede, but not happy about your specific wording there. Not happy about moving sections round, because the article is (and in my view will always be) mainly to do with sentiment within the UK rather than globally - which is more likely to be covered in Anti-British sentiment as there is less global recognition of England/Wales/Scotland differences. Not happy about moving image - seems better where it is (if contrary to MoS, it suggests MoS is wrong IMHO) and certainly shouldn't be in UK section when it presents an image from France. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about that article (Anti-British sentiment) which strikes me as a much better title - maybe this should be called Anti-English sentiment with a link? --Snowded ^TALK 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, but there was some opposition to renaming it, higher up this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I called it "anti-British sentiment" simply because there's no such word as "britophobia" in the dictionary. We have already discussed "phobia" more than once, if you recall.BillMasen (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm Ok with Phobia as well, now we have the OED definition, but its more restrictive than "sentiment" which is something you might want to think about --Snowded ^TALK 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the section order as it was if that's an acceptable compromise for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

... Which I've now done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. A couple of points: The introduction says: "Anglophobia...means hatred or fear of England or the English people. The term is also sometimes used to mean Anti-British sentiment in general." My Shorter OED defines Anglophobia as "Intense fear or hatred of England". Note the "intense", no mention of "the English people", and no mention of it also being used to refer to anti-British feeling. It would be helpful if the exact definition set out in the referenced ODE could be set out here, so we are sure there's no "interpretation" of the evidence going on. In particular, I would have thought that its use to mean "Anti-British" should be flagged as "loosely" or "incorrectly" - eg "The term is also sometimes used loosely to mean Anti-British sentiment in general." And, on a minor style point, I would have thought the first two sentences could be combined as one para and one of the refs dropped.
The "Rosbif" image. Is it actually "Anglophobic" in any sense, or is it just French slang? If it's not directly relevant, it shouldn't really be in this article. And if it is demonstrated to be "Anglophobic", would it not look better at the start of the article rather than squeezing text in a later section (especially as there is currently no text at all in relation to France)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy for further work on the introduction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)