Talk:Anti-British sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The majority of information provided here could very easily be placed on the Anglophobia page. Admittedly, there is a difference between English and British, but the majority of anti-British sentiment is anti-English anyway. Crablogger (talk) 07:31, 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) 12:09, 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)
for the sake of simplicity, let's keep this discussion on Talk:Anglophobia BillMasen (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Crablogger (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I also respectfully disagree. We have to carfully avoid to think that the English language (and leadership as the linga franca of the world) and the nations and/or cultures have the same root of anti-sentiment.--Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


This article I suspect is lacking a focus on the subcontinent - India/pakistan/Burma to name three. Also Africa (Zim?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, but with respect, your comment is symptomatic of a problem with Wikipedia. You cannot simply ask others to expand the article ad infinitum. Aren't you as qualified to look up reports of anti-British sentiment as anyone else? BillMasen (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely/Good point. Usually I am a contributor (have a look at my contribs), and did this last thing before going to bed. I left a flag as someone who might be more familiar might chime in. I will pop a note at the various wikiprojects and revisit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have my reservations about various Anti-X discrimination/sentiment type of articles. The main problem is that such articles are open to original research, POVs and soapboxing. For instance Anti British sentiment would expressly imply a hatred for the British, based on their Britishness, regardless of the circumstances at any given time. Wherever there is a war, there is an "enemy" and you dont expect warring nations to talk nicely about each other! So the Anti-British sentiment in Argentina speciifically emerges from the Falkland War and not from a specific dislike of the British. Not in the same manner as Anti-Semetism which was pervasive and not bound to specific circumstances. Ditto for India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. --Deepak D'Souza 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You could say that about many sociological articles on WP which touch on negative aspects like this. Agree the article needs to be very careful and anything unreffed tagged and/or removed pronto. I was more thinking of historical aspects of anti-british sentiment under colonial rule. Again, I do not know enough about the history of the subcontinent to be too helpful here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not our place to excuse resentment against British people or anyone else on the grounds that "they have a specific reason for it". Just to pick one example: that plumber in Ireland. Does he care that "there is a specific reason" for the bigotry directed towards him? To blame the denizens of a country for something their government did 100 years ago is always wrong (unless, of course, an individual thinks that it was right). BillMasen (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the Irish case,the courts gave a fair hearing and found that the Englsihman was discriminated against. But thats the point: he was hated because he was BRitish. Not becasue there is a territoral dispute between Ireland and UK. But the section on Argentina merely says that "Anti-British sentiment in Argentina stems mainly from ..." It doesnt say what this Anti-British sentiment is; it mereley gives a reason for the sentiment. --Deepak D'Souza 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
All right, I have removed the Argentina section as it didn't cite any attacks or discrimination against British people. BillMasen (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


The Scottish (and similarly the Welsh) tend to have disslike for England and the unity of themselves in the "United" Kingdom. Does this qualify as anti-British? Jolly Ω Janner 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For my money, this goes either in Scottish nationalism (wishing to dissolve the Union with England) or Anglophobia. BillMasen (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say then, "this is anti-British sentiment Scotland is part of Britain why is he saying that". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

South Asia[edit]

I have deleted this section on the grounds that all of the information provided was not only unsourced, but also because it did not seem to fit in with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Unless anyone can prove me wrong, then by all means post it back up, but only if it is appropriately referenced. --Crablogger (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


This article is, to use a British term, a "load of bollocks" and was obviously written by a Briton. Funny how it has a huge "BRITISH PEOPLE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!!!!" notice at the top-right corner of the page. No, anti-British sentiment is not discrimination. The British are not an oppressed people and never have been. Rather, they have usually been the oppressors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjandifkgk (talkcontribs) 01:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This article does not seek to argue whether or not the British are "oppressed" or "oppressors" - it simply records examples of anti-British sentiment, as part of a much more wide-ranging group of articles here on discrimination. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

But I was told they were forced by the EU to use the euro, the metre, the kg and even divide the minute in 60 seconds. If that is not a cultural genocide, I don't know what could be called so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi everyone, I'm astonished that French people are not in the list as we (I'm French) are their historic "enemies" since at least the 100-year war. That's not only an historical fact but also a modern fact : (page 13).--Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hostility between France and England is mentioned at the article on Anglophobia. Relations between France and Scotland - which is also part of Britain - are historically good, n'est ce pas? The publication you cite refers to people in France having a less positive view of the UK than in the past, but that is not the same as "prejudice, fear or hatred", which is what this article is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


However it should be noted that a vast majority of British nationals[who?] do not find the term "Pom" offensive, and often consider it as an insult used in jest with no real malice behind the expression.[citation needed] Likewise, many British nationals[who?] refer (again, in jest) to the Australian and New Zealand peoples as "Aussies" and "Kiwis" respectively, with no malice intended

Who says this? Where are these figures? This is a load of bollox. It might be the case that a recently arrived British immigrant in their complete ignorance of the term and the history surrounding it mightn't have an issue with it, but that's probably it. As for Aussie and Kiwi, Aussie is short for Australian and Kiwi is a bird, and both terms were given to these people by themselves and are embraced by them for the rest of the world to use. There is no correlation with 'pom'. This entry is not fact, and if there is no support given, I shall remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

More information on India needed[edit]

In India, the summary for anti-British sentiment requires expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

'Church Savagery'[edit]

I've balanced the sentence to include the word 'incorrectly' as no such incident by the British forces ever happened, a massacre did occur by Germans in World War 2 at the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. An editor unwisely reverted my edit, using the reason 'no savagery ever?' which seems non-sensical as the sentence deals with the film The Patriot, as such I cannot see a problem with returning the article to neutrality by pointing that out, after all Wikipedia is about being a reliable resource, regards.Twobells (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm... what?? The sentence before you changed it read: "Roland Emmerich's 2000 movie The Patriot drew controversy for depicting the British forces engaging in savagery in the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolution." - citing this source. Nothing wrong with that - a factual statement that it created controversy. You made two substantive edits. The first one added the word "(incorrectly)" - which is not supported by the source. The source simply says that, according to Liverpool City Council, the real-life character Banastre Tarleton was misrepresented in the movie. Your addition is therefore a commentary unsupported by the source. You then added another sentence, referring to an atrocity carried out by German troops during World War Two. At the risk of stating the obvious, that has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-British sentiments held by Americans - which is the subject of that paragraph. It has nothing to do with the claims made about Tarleton in Emmerich's movie. Clearly, there is no place in that section either for your commentary, or for mentioning the supposed parallel that you suggest. Neither are supported by the sources, and you should remove them. See also WP:RGW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: Thanks for adding the commentary sources. I've now edited the text again, so that it makes sense and adheres to what the sources say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
As was, your phrasing suggested there was no savagery ever by the British during the American Revolution, whiich is arrant nonsense, not that one incident did not occur as represented in the film. Thankfully, another editor fixed the problem, but frankly, citing the scene as an example of anti-British sentiment (rather than the ordinary dramatic license that it and untold other scenes like it take) is a helluva Hail Mary attempt to pad up the section. --Drmargi (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please calm down, I was referring to the film the Patriot, which is what the section actually referred to, not to the wider war. Yes, savagery was committed by both sides in the Revolutionary War some savagery was even committed by rebels against their own people. Also, many African Americans were tortured and blinded for daring to be free following their release by the British. Did such an event happen? Yes, by the Germans in World War 2 during the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre and the source material refers to it more than once so of course such an entry is required because it gives important context. The reality is that no such event was ever carried out by the British so I do not think anyone would have an issue with that but it seems once again that these two editors wish to promote their personal positions on an issue rather than stick to the facts as stated by the source material. Twobells (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. Most of your latest edits in relation to The Patriot seem to be supported by the sources, but not - so far as I can tell - the claim about "blood libel", which I've now removed. Your edits about the Queen's visit to Ireland, are, again, commentary not supported by the cited source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Pardon? WP:NPA? WHo has made NPA? Please stop reverting and interfering with my edits, you clearly are not qualified.Twobells (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you claim that other editors "wish to promote their personal positions", that is a personal attack on editors' neutrality and you should withdraw it. You might like to do the same with claims that I am "clearly.. not qualified". I'm perfectly qualified to read and understand the sources cited, without putting an opinionated slant on it, which is what is required here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering our history what else am I to premise? The source clearly states 'blood libel' yet you removed it for whatever reason is known only to youself.Twobells (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - the Telegraph source you added after this discussion started makes that claim - so I've kept it in. Previous sources you cited did not mention "blood libel", so I took it out. And it would help if you learned how to make citations properly, rather than relying on the rest of us to clear up your mess. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is in the other sources, I added that one as well to counter your reverts. Also, please don't try and tell me how to format, I added that in the short term while I dealt with another tendentious editor, however, it seems you couldn't wait even five minutes before taking the high ground. Twobells (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland Section[edit]

An editor has reverted my edits and the citations that support them because the source material refutes their position, that is completely unacceptable.

Here is the text:

Queen shaken and stirred as Irish tour concludes

Impromptu walkabout in Cork wins new friends, as Sinn Féin is ridiculed for censuring member who shook hand

Stephen Bates in Cork

The Queen has concluded her highly successful first official visit to Ireland with an impromptu walkabout in Cork, greeting hundreds of cheering children and shopworkers.

Earlier, during a visit to the medieval castle and cathedral at the Rock of Cashel, one of the country's most historic sites, she even found a Sinn Féin representative willing to meet her and shake her hand: the mayor, Michael Browne. He breached party conventions that members should not meet the monarch and earned criticism for doing so. He claimed it was his civic duty to do it. "I just shook hands with her … I just said 'Welcome to Cashel your majesty and I hope you enjoy your stay'. No more, no less."

The party has been much criticised for refusing to meet the Queen and ridiculed for its stance, with suggestions that it would never be satisfied, whatever happened. Her popularity appears to have disconcerted it.

Royal officials and Irish ministers have been thrilled at the outcome of the visit. Protests have been very muted and there has been much favourable comment about the 85-year-old's feistiness and the obvious sincerity of her acknowledgement of past wrongs and the respects she paid at the country's remembrance garden. He breached party conventions that members should not meet the monarch and earned criticism for doing so. He claimed it was his civic duty to do it. "I just shook hands with her … I just said 'Welcome to Cashel your majesty and I hope you enjoy your stay'. No more, no less."

The party has been much criticised for refusing to meet the Queen and ridiculed for its stance, with suggestions that it would never be satisfied, whatever happened. Her popularity appears to have disconcerted it. Muiris O Súilleabháin, Sinn Féin's South Tipperary spokesman, said: "Party members in Tipperary were surprised by Michael Browne's action, especially as he recently signed a statement against the English queen's visit to the Rock of Cashel.

"The visit of the English queen to Ireland is premature and we are opposed to it. Elected members should not attend any of the events related to it."

Despite that, the Queen met plenty of Irish people who were prepared to cheer her. In Cork several thousand turned out, drowning a protest by hundreds of opponents, who were kept out of earshot across the river that divides the town. Fishmonger Pat O'Connell said: "She was absolutely superb. She is easy to talk to, and has got a great sense of humour.

"She got a huge welcome here. I am very proud to be a market trader, and very proud to be a Cork man." Outside the market, the Queen unexpectedly plunged towards the waiting crowd opposite, smiling and chatting to individuals. Rosemary Williams of Clonakilty said: "It says a lot for Cork that the threat was perceived to be less here. She is purely wonderful."

And this is my edit: However, during her successful and crowd-pleasing visit she was also welcomed by both locals and Irish ministers who were delighted at the visit and went on to criticize and ridicule the republican stance. And although the edit reflects the source material to the letter this editor states it is 'POV' the same 'POV' that is so often employed to keep relevant, neutral edits off Wikipedia. I will wait 24 hours and re-add this clearly neutral, sourced material. Twobells (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You consider your edit is NPOV? Really? Have you read any part of the policy? My advice is that you should. If, however, you are still intent on adding this edit to the article I suggest you seek to obtain agreement at the neutral point of view noticeboard first. Without obtaining such agreement first (which please link to here), I will revert any attempt to include it in this article. Good luck. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Its the same WP:NPOV argument that keeps your cherry-picked, jingoistic, nationalistic and poorly supported edits out. The use of solely British sources, which are going to wave the flag, is POV all on its own. You hear the same complaints about your edits on one article after another. Time to take it to heart instead of adopting an adversarial stance. Meanwhile, the point is not to tell us your edit is neutral. You have to convince us, and thereby build consensus. So far, you're not achieving that. --Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you replying to me? Daicaregos (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No, to Twobells. --Drmargi (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Its the same WP:NPOV argument that keeps your cherry-picked, jingoistic, nationalistic and poorly supported edits out.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, you would say that wouldn't you? considering you have been the one time and again desperately attempting to maintain an unbalanced, non-neutral, cherry-picked position on many articles. In the case of this article, even though the edit reflects word for word the source material you seek to keep only a little-known Irish source as the citation and reverted my edit which attempted to balance the article and cited The Guardian So what do you then do? You attempt to shoot down The Guardian, stating it is 'jingoistic and nationalistic' which is clearly ludicrous indicating you no little about trusted, reliable sources and some of the worst hypocrisy I've ever read considering you are doing your utmost to keep the unbalanced, non-neutral edits in place which suggests that you are trying to employ WP:UNDUE and cherry pick, employing jingoistic, nationalist, out of context edits that fail to reflect facts as well-supported by the non-conetncious, reliable source material.Twobells (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

'You consider your edit is NPOV? Really? Have you read any part of the policy? '
Well, yes, once the Guardian cite was added and I can only go by the Guardians article which laid out the visit very well, the fact you find The Guardian's piece NPOV is rather bizarre to say the least as everyone knows that The Guardian is well known for their neutral, reliable balanced view which was added to give the section some semblance of neutrality considering currently, the section is the epitome of bias. Twobells (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Israel[edit]

The article has a section that automatically presumes that the Independent, the Guardian and the BBC are anti-Israel by criticism of the Israeli state in relation to Palestinians. This is a biased statement, which should at minimum state, that some Israeli's believe that the Guardian, the Independent and the BBC appear to be biased towards Israel and favour the Palestinian point of view in recent years. The article should not just state that the independent, the Guardian and the BBC are anti-Israeli and biased news organisations against the Israeli state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The article does not "presume.. that the Independent, the Guardian and the BBC are anti-Israel" - it contains a quote, by a commentator, making those suggestions. Whether the quote should be included is a different matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Adding South Africa? At least from the colonial/Anglo-Boer war to the end of the Apartheid era? As well as there being any NEW Anti-British sentiment since 1994? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samusfan80 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone may add to this article if the text is both notable and accompanied by reliably sourced references. If you are unsure how to do this please suggest any changes here. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Spain abandoning what?[edit]

"Spain was considering withdrawing from NATO and forging an anti-British, anti-American, anti-NATO alliance with Argentina, adopting its strategy over the Falkland Islands"

I haven't heard about any spexit from any organization nowhere but here. I'm not sure the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source either. If nobody disagrees I will take that line off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Though the Telegraph is generally considered a reliable source, the claims in the text here did not match those in the cited article - which does not mention NATO. So, I've removed those claims and also added a tag to the unsourced preceding sentence. It is questionable, at least, whether there is sufficient justification for including the Spain section at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-British sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Objectively, many people across the globe have been trampled under foot by the British Empire, is it really fair to state that subsequent anti-British sentiment arising from these circumstances is a "prejudice". A prejudice is a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." By saying that this sentiment, is in all cases a form of prejudice, we are essentially cheapening the experiences of those who have been on the business end of British Imperialism. It may be better to simply state that this is an aversion, opposition to, dislike of. That seems to be more objective. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the feelings may be of justifiable hatred, others may be of unjustified prejudice. The article does not state that the sentiment is one of prejudice "in all cases". It covers both sentiments - hence the use of the word or. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)