Jump to content

Talk:Anti-English sentiment/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

France

The point I made above was that in moving material to Anti-British sentiment, material such as the English-French antipathy went with it. That was a mistake IMHO. The Scots, for example, don't share an antipathy for the French, if fact the opposite there is a mutual affection dating back to the Auld Alliance. I think that material should be moved back. Justin talk 09:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't spotted that. The only deleted text I can find is this: "The "perfidious Albion" expression is still used by French journalists to mock the Francophobe sentiments of the British tabloids, e.g. the accusation that France cheated to win the World Cup 1998, or the accusation that the French beauty pageant contestant Élodie Gossuin is a transsexual.[1]" That seems to refer to "English" and "British" indiscriminately, but also provides a link to Perfidious Albion, which I hadn't seen before and which provides some info for a new France section here. It would also be useful, in my view, to refer briefly to the Auld Alliance here, to point out that it is quite possible to be both anti-English and pro-(some elements of) "British" (assuming that Scots permit themselves to be called "British"). Anyone prepared to draft a new France section for this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no antipathy towards the French from Scots. My problem with the article is the wording of the opening line "sometimes used to mean anti-British sentiment". Which parts of the article are referring to anti-British and which parts are referring to anti-English? As the article is expanded great care will have to be taken to ensure that nothing is included which will come under "sometimes anti-British" as it will have no relevance to the article. In my opinion the line I referred to should be taken out and great care taken to ensure no part of the article could come under anti-British sentiment. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree - see my earlier comment. If references or dictionaries do confirm that the term is sometimes used internationally to cover "anti-British" sentiment, it needs to be stated that the usage is at best loose, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My dictionary does indeed say that it includes hatred of Britain. That is why I specifically stated that the term sometimes means hatred of Britain, but that this article covers England-hating only.
I would be strongly opposed to creating an article which conflates antipathy towards the British state with Anglophobia. As I have said before, the British state is not a purely "english" concern, and has not been for hundreds of years.
I think adding the Auld alliance would be a good idea, too. BillMasen (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If the references do say it can cover "anti-British" sentiment it does not belong in the article. We can't have an encyclopedia giving us loose, inaccurate, or just plain wrong information and then stating it to be so. It may mean the article cannot be expanded very much, but then wouldn't we rather have an accurate small article than an inaccurate large one? Jack forbes (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. What exactly doesn't belong in the article?
Words have more than one meaning. It is very common for there to be 2 WP articles on 2 different things with the same name. :::::I have made a modest start to the France section. Not very impressive yet, but give me a while.BillMasen (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The text added on France is surely about English hostility to the French, not about French hostility to the English, is it not? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we have two examples of people concerned that the French want to exterminate the English language, which would presumably be an anglophobic thing to do. I'm also trying to provide some historical background (the early relationship is rather complicated) BillMasen (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll hold back for the moment. Are you aware of the article on France – United Kingdom relations? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. So we're up to the Jacobites. That's probably the last example of diplomatic hostility towards England but not Britain.
Presumably, the French continued to maintain cultural links of some kind with Scotland. Anyone who knows anything about that, please contribute. I'm off to have lunch :) BillMasen (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The earlier version of the introduction was:

Anglophobia (from Latin Anglus "English" + Greek φόβος -phobos, "fear") means hatred or fear of England or the English people. Although the term is sometimes used to mean resentment of the British people or British culture in general, this article relates to England and to the English, in particular.[2]

That explains the difference between anti-English and anti-British better than the current version, but falls foul of this WP style guidance. Can anyone help to resolve this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just put something like: Anglophobia should not be confused with Anti-British sentiment, which is a prejudice against the British people as a whole? Crablogger (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Because, according to BillMasen's dictionary, it can also be defined as anti-British sentiment. In my view that definition is wrong, but it is apparently verifiable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:SRTA#Neutral_self-references_are_acceptable suggest that we can have a self-reference as long as it doesn't refer to Wikipedia. So we could say "this article refers to hatred of the English in particular".BillMasen (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

George Orwell

The George Orwell quote: 'Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation.' is under the Scotland sub-section. Any objections to moving it above the Scotland section, so it is under the Within the United Kingdom section? It would seem more appropriate there. Daicaregos (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, but it would be good to have some context added. The full Orwell essay is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a very long essay which touches upon many topics. What kind of context do you think it should have? BillMasen (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Its a quote of its time - 1945 the end of national socialism etc. , and the categorisation of types of nationalist (this one is seen as positive others as negative). He said other things (as I remember it) in Homage to Catalonia along similar lines. At the same time the rest of the material in Wales (to take one) seems to be mostly towards the end of the last century. The overall problem is that Orwell is not talking about anglophobia in the sense its defined. --Snowded TALK 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, what is your basis for thinking he is talking about a completely different kind of anglophobia from the one in this article? I have to say it would be extraordinary to try to say he didn't really mean that nationalism was anti-English. I mean, that's exactly what he said! BillMasen (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph from which it comes:
Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation. Members of all three movements have opposed the war while continuing to describe themselves as pro-Russian, and the lunatic fringe has even contrived to be simultaneously pro-Russian and pro-Nazi. But Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia. Its motive force is a belief in the past and future greatness of the Celtic peoples, and it has a strong tinge of racialism. The Celt is supposed to be spiritually superior to the Saxon -- simpler, more creative, less vulgar, less snobbish, etc. -- but the usual power hunger is there under the surface. One symptom of it is the delusion that Eire, Scotland or even Wales could preserve its independence unaided and owes nothing to British protection. Among writers, good examples of this school of thought are Hugh MacDiarmid and Sean O'Casey. No modern Irish writer, even of the stature of Yeats or Joyce, is completely free from traces of nationalism.
Now: he says that "celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia", but it is clear that he thinks celtic nationalism essentially exalts the positive alleged qualities of the Celts over the negative alleged qualities of the English.
Modern examples of anglophobia in this article are clearly not in the league of the small number of lunatics who courted the Nazis rather than support the British war effort. However, I think this means that the WW2 attempted collaborators should be covered in this article, not that the Orwell quote should be excised. BillMasen (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My point was that he does not talk about "hatred and fear" --Snowded TALK 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh really, that is pedantic. Does every example of anglophobia have to mention the word hatred or fear? Much as you might like there to be, there is no word for "antipathy towards the English which is less than hatred or fear".
Orwell even uses the word "anglophobia". And if supporting the Nazis over the English, as a small minority of Celtic nationalists did, isn't an example of hating the English, I really don't know what is. BillMasen (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

This section needs to focus on Anglophobia - "hatred or fear of England or the English people" - within Argentina. It doesn't currently do that - it simply sets out political positions in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas. Having said that, it is preferable to have a short section which does that, rather than a longer section which simply expands on the political issues and the British and Argentine territorial claims. In my view, those are not a matter for this article - I'm not suggesting the issues are not important, simply that this is not the right article to discuss those political and constitutional matters. So, it would be better to have the short section as agreed in March 2009, rather than the longer section which the IPs are now seeking to introduce. On that basis, the longer version should be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Justin talk 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia and Anti-British

This is really not resolved. Argentina for example is there but australia is removed. In practice the only stuff which is going to be clearly anti-English is from the celtic nations and Franc and material is there under the culture section. If you look at the edit histories the confusion of England/Britain persists. The US is pro-Irish, but anti British or English? The citations are mixed given the common confusions of terms. May it would be best to merge the two articles with appropriate notes and a section of celtic-english. --Snowded TALK 16:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What's not clear is the extent to which views towards the Scots and Welsh in any of these countries are different to the views expressed towards the English. Are Scottish and Welsh people called "poms", or is it just the English? Is there a different feeling towards those nations perceived as struggling to free themselves from English hegemony - as I'm sure it's seen by some? There's also the problems that the term is - whether or not we think it's right or wrong - in fact widely used to describe anti-British sentiment rather than just anti-English. And, incidentally, the article on anti-British sentiment is in an even worse state than this one. We need to resolve these questions, and then decide whether two separate articles are needed or whether they should be merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If you mean that anti-British sentiment needs to be expanded, then I agree. I look forward to any contribtuitons on that front.
I agree that the Argentina section in ints present form should be excised. Footballing rivalry and violence would be relevant though. BillMasen (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think that this article should be merged into the Anti-British one. That would allow for the confusions between the two --Snowded TALK 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
But the Welsh and Scottish sections can't possibly be considered "anti-British", can they? Nor can the French section in its present form. The idea that English history can be conflated with British history is POV (and, although it is strictly irrelevant, inconsistent with Scottish/Welsh nationalism). BillMasen (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bill's point - there is anti-English sentiment within the UK, and there is anti-British sentiment outside the UK. Those could stay as separate articles - but the question is complicated by the fact that both are sometimes called, rightly or wrongly, "Anglophobia". There is also the question of specifically anti-English (as opposed to anti-British) sentiment outside the UK, which I think we've identified in France and the US, but as yet not elsewhere - and in which article that should be referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is anti-English sentiment that is specific to Wales, Scotland, Ireland and a degree France. But I don't think it can be properly referenced as "Anglophobia", none of the material in the article confirms with that and its only used in respect of one American citation (from memory). A lot of the anti-British sentiment is a consequence of Empire and given that (and this is citable) England was synonymous with Britain until recently then the confusion exists. Renaming this article and keeping it to stuff which is clearly anti-English, removing material where English is being used as a substitute term for British to the other article is another way forward. Or making this article a subset of the anti-British one (given that the cultural articles already make many of the points contained here). --Snowded TALK 11:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And with your first example Argentina, there is bizarrely an Anti-English sentiment associated with the Anglo-Aregntines, which is also related to Peronism. There are also elements of Anglophobia related to football rivalry, which are completely out of context. It makes sense to have a separate article, to merge would be confusing. Justin talk 13:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
-phobia is consistent with every other article about sentiment against another country. Some of those citations talk about anti-English racism/discrimination/prejudice/violence; I do not think we should have to find the words "hatred" "fear" or "anglophobia" in every cite for them to be considered examples of anglophobia (Note that none of them pertains solely to antipathy towards the British state). Moreover, "anti-English sentiment" is not a word or a concept in the dictionary, so Anglophobia is prima facie preferable. BillMasen (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Both the articles need alot of work but i think it makes sense to maintain separate ones for anti English / anti British aslong as the British article is linked in the intro of his one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅We have (as far as I can see) one other Phobia article (France) but Britain and Germany all use the more accurate "Anti-X Sentiment. If I look here it confirms this (Germanophobia redirects to anti-german sentiment). The wikipedia norm is anti-X sentiment, which also more accurately supports the cited material. So the prima facia case is for a name change.--Snowded TALK 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Lusophobia, Sinophobia and Hispanophobia? I really do not see why we need to make this particular form of racism look more respectable by giving it a euphemistic name. BillMasen (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that it? The clear majority of these type articles take the Anti-X sentiment approach (see above) so you can't dismiss it that easily. Calling it racism represents a very different proposition. Anti-English sentiment does not constitute racism, even being afraid of the English (which is what Anglophobia means) assuming such a thing exists (and there is no cited evidence to support that) is not racist. What I want is a name that reflects the content, no one wants a euphemism. I seriously suggest you withdraw that association, if you take this article to reflect racism against the English then its a very different proposition and the debate needs to be handled differently. --Snowded TALK 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It means hatred or fear of the English, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. The citations contain examlples of one or the other. What are we going to call "hatred or fear of the the english per se" if not racism? You could argue that racism is only ethnic prejudice, and that anglophobia is xenophobia, but that still does not substantiate a move to anti-sentiment. BillMasen (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(I indented for you). Look Bill I think this is becoming a serious NPOV issue. You have not demonstrated hatred or fear of the English, certainly not racism. There is clear evidence of anti-English sentiment, but some of that is anti-incomers (who just happen to be English). If there is genuine Anglophobia then it would prove fear, it might prove hatred, it might prove racism but not necessarily so. I have no intention of arguing that racism is only ethnic prejudice and I would caution you to observe WP:GF. The majority of articles of this type (including the one on the British which is obviously linked) are anti-X sentiment. Are you saying that feelings against the British are just a sentiment, while feelings against the English are racism? Really? --Snowded TALK 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No. But I am saying there is no such word as "britophobia". If you want to move that article to anti-British racism, I do not have a problem with that. I was not implying bad faith on your part with the ethnic comment: merely trying to cover my bases in this discussion. BillMasen (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Anti-British racism!!! Are you serious? I've worked for years on anti-racism programs in Australia and the UK and the material cited in these articles is not racism, total misuse of the language--Snowded TALK 04:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way Bill, you were happy to rename it Anti-English sentiment earlier "If you badly want to move it to anti-English sentiment, fine". Here is the diff--Snowded TALK 09:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, i dont mind what this article is called. If it remains at Anglophobia or moves to Anti-English sentiment is fine with me, I just dont think this should be merged with the British one. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see we may have a volunteer: 'Both the articles need alot of work ...'. Well done BritishWatcher, very commendable. Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
very funny thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No mirth intended. Perhaps, as it seems that you're not prepared to actually contribute to the '... alot of work ...' you consider this article needs. Then, could we ask you to contribute in some other equally valid and useful way? Would you mind just watching other editors do that work instead? And then maybe you could sit in judgement to decide whether or not other editors' hard work is 'completely unacceptable', 'misleading' or even has some (gulp) 'nationalist agenda'? Think you could handle that? lol ;) Daicaregos (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Daicaregos, i will sit here and watch you all contribute to this article and if i do not like something i will let you know. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I suggest that we move this article to anti-English sentiment for the following reason

  • The majority of articles of this nature use the form anti-X sentiment. See here Where the count is 23 for ANTI to 3 for PHOBIA, 5 if you add the ones referenced by Bill, Germanophobia redirects to Anti-German sentiment
  • In this case the closely linked article on Britain takes this form and its a nonsense to imply that people are phobic about the English, but just have anti-British sentiment
  • The term anglophobia only has one citation to support it across both articles
  • Most of the examples do not provide evidence of "hatred" or "fear"
  • The implication that Britain is riven by celtic racism against the English is plain silly. There are real issues on racism in Britain but they are not between the original inhabitants of the Islands to any significant degree.
  • The name change makes the examples used less contentious and increases the viability of the article as a separate page

--Snowded TALK 05:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn over this one. "Anglophobia" is a well-referenced term, but one with different interpretations, such as in this title. (This is amusing.) "Anti-English sentiment" is clearer, but it is also a much weaker concept. Clearly, some people (in the world in general, not specifically here) downplay anti-English sentiment within the UK and would favour using that term, and others feel that anti-English hostility (that is, "hatred or fear") within parts of the UK (in particular) is a real problem (in some places, on some occasions) which can correctly be described as "Anglophobia" (e.g. in this title). The references generally tend to support the former line, while there is also little doubt that Anglophobia (whether by individuals or on specific issues) does exist in a stronger sense. We need to find a common ground, without encouraging a proliferation of articles covering concepts which, to the outsider, have quite subtle distinctions. Before I !vote, does anyone disagree with what I've said? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you per se in the summary of the issue. However while there are cases of Anglophobia, the overall tenor of the article is anti-English. By creating a more generic title we allow a wider and more representative set of cases. If we keep the current title then many of the existing cases do not match the title and should be removed or modified. One motivation for the proposed move is to allow the article to exist without multiple edit conflicts --Snowded TALK 08:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "the overall tenor of the article is anti-English" ? - that is the subject of the article, after all. Clearly, the refs which cannot reasonably be described (or are not referenced) as "Anglophobic" should either be deleted from this article - or, alternatively, the article should make clear that the term is used in common parlance to describe a broad range of anti-English sentiment, and the refs could be listed to show the range of anti-English sentiment (or some other word) which can and is (albeit "wrongly" in terms of the etymology of the word) capable of being described as falling within the overall concept of Anglophobia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That is my point, if the subject of the article was anti-English sentiment (with the odd exception of partial citation) I would have no problem with most of the content. However the title is Anglophobia for which the definition (as Bill has made very clear) is "hate" and "fear". The etymology does not support the generic use you suggest above. I am sure that is one of the reasons why the bulk of articles do not use "phobia". I'm also disturbed by some of the uses of "racism" here. --Snowded TALK 09:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
But the etymology of many words does not indicate the current meaning, and there seems to be evidence that in this case the term is sometimes used more loosely than its dictionary definition. Obviously, in identifying a way forward we need to try to discount the personal views and comments of individual editors, however provocative they might be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring provocative editors is part of editing wikipedia. However its not just etymology it is also the current meaning, check Websters and others they all have variants of "hatred or fear of England or its people". Germanophobia has moved to Anti-German sentiment, the fast majority of other articles follow that form. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. In my view, the text of the article (under whatever title) needs to be improved, particularly to make clear both that the term Anglophobia is sometimes used more loosely than its strict dictionary definition of "hatred or fear" (and it shouldn't say that such a loose use is "incorrect" - it's part of the natural development of language); and also that some of the refs in the article do not demonstrate "hatred or fear", but rather a less extreme form of anti-English sentiment. So long as the article makes those points clearly, I personally don't think the article title is that important, and if the points above are accepted I don't understand why it should be a major concern. Although I'd personally veer towards keeping the existing title (while clarifying that the article contains examples of broader anti-English sentiment), as the word is much more likely to be searched for, I wouldn't stand in the way of a change. But, are my earlier points about the content of the article acceptable? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Your points about content are fine with a name change, without that, given the "hate" and "fear" meaning (Chambers, American Heritage & Websters) a lot of material should go. In terms of authority its those dictionary definitions that count. --Snowded TALK 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. There are ample citations for a looser usage of the word than "hatred or fear". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well lets see them then, at the moment only one incident out of all those listed uses the word. --Snowded TALK 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Some examples below, none of which use the definition "hatred or fear". That is clearly one definition, but others exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't change the article title. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Current material to support above

  • Generic quote from Orwell 1945
  • Newspaper report speculates on increase in anti-English sentiment 1999
  • Single reference from Scotland comparing Anglophobia with Islamophobia, examples. Quotes are selective, for example the following are ignored: there is less Anglophobia than Islamophobia in Scotland; progress towards multi-cultural nationalism has been an important achievement in Scotland post devolution; the English feel "at home living in Scotland" and more so since devolution.
  • 2009 newspaper report of an "allegedly anti-English" attack reported here as an attack
  • Three newspaper reports relating to anti-english behaviour around football matches, two during the world cup in 2006
  • An opening paragraph on Wales containing uncited claims (eg. a long history of Anglophobia)
  • Uncited claim that the Welsh feel their language and culture is threatened
  • Cited (but incomplete or partial quotation) material relating to to Meibion Glyndŵr in the 1980s. Citation makes it clear that attacks were on holiday homes and that "the campaign revolves around the claim that Welsh residents are being deprived of homes, at the expense of wealthy English People". It is as valid to interpret this as class conflict as it is to interpret it as anti-English
  • A newspaper report (2000) on claims that there has been a post devolution increase in discrimination. Examples include six complaints at an offer a a free pint every time a team scored against England. No evidence presented that investigation into the complaints were taken forward or proved to have any justification
  • A newspaper report (2002) reporting a proposal by a Plaid Cymru councellor wanting restrictions on inward migration. Again citation is incomplete, the report makes it clear that it is easier to buy a holiday cottage in the Lake District than in Wales, and there is only one mention of the English, namely a suggestion that English owned homes be occupied. This is not a quotation, but the reporters interpretation.
  • A newspaper report about wales beig a "dumping ground" which again does not mention the English, this (and the above) are qualified by a report to the CRE, but the cases were dropped.
  • A single report in 2008 of compensation following racial harassment on a building site from 2008
  • A very general couple of sparagraph on the history of Anglo-French conflict with no references to material in the last two centuries.
  • A cited paragraph on the US Irish-American community

Now in all of that, there is only one reference to Anglophobia, and that was a report which is partially and selectively reported in this article. The remaining examples are in the main minor examples, often generically against in-comers rather than the English, or anecdotal statements not backed up by further reports or evidence. Subject to modifcations for balance etc. there is no great harm in any of this, but none of it it justifies a charge of racism (see Bill above) or a title based on "fear" and "hatred". --Snowded TALK 08:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming an article Anti- anything, is counter-productive. I see nothing wrong with the current title. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly no consensus for moving it to another title. The article needs to be improved, and it's good to see that that process is underway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations to demonstrate that "Anglophobia" is used in a sense wider than "hatred or fear"

My emphasis throughout. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • anglophobe or Anglophobe noun someone who hates or fears England and the English. anglophobia noun. Chambers 21st Century

To add one more. I would be interested to see the OED definition but I don't have that. I also note that both American references confuse Anglophobia with anti-British prejudice (which would argue for a merge). I'll happily concede that two have the weakened "dislike", but even then fear/intense dread/aversion/extreme dislike/aversion to/hate (to summarise) are all far stronger words that the material in this article. --Snowded TALK 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No dispute that the article needs improving, but the point is that the term is used more loosely than solely "hatred or fear". That point should be made in the intro. Therefore, it is reasonable to include some reference in the article to some of the "lesser" examples quoted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and let it be remembereed that I tried to capture the looser definition of the term in the lead. However, Snowded insisted on the strict dictionary definition, which was "hatred or fear" in the OED. My original definition was "antipathy", perhaps Snowded wants to restore that one? BillMasen (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well if the OED and Chambers say hatred or fear and Websters has intense dread then I think thats pretty authoritative. It places a higher bar to entry than would be case for anti-english sentiment of course.--Snowded TALK 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
But you don't agree that the other definitions support the inclusion of other meanings? BillMasen (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The definitions of anglophobia are pretty clear, the weaker text is associated with anglophobe, but will still require evidence of dislike or fear. I think its the wrong word Bill but if I am in a minority so be it. Unless other editors engage I'll just have to live with that and focus on making sure that the material is cited and conforms with those citations. --Snowded TALK 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism and phobia

I don't recant any of the things I have said above on that topic, nor have I imputed bad faith either directly or by implication. However, I have been guilty of violating WP:FORUM.

I never claimed that Britain is "riven with Celtic anglophobia"; merely that it exists and is notable enough to deserve an article. Nowhere in this article does it accuse anyone of being a racist. The only reference to racism is the category at the bottom, which was not added by me.

As GHmyrtle said, "anti-English sentiment" is a much weaker concept than Anglophobia. I am only asking people to consider resentment against English incomers the same way that they would consider resentment against Muslim incomers. I am quite ready to agree that Anglophobia is a far less widespread social phenomenon than Islamophobia (and that article isn't anti-Muslim sentiment, by the way) but that does not make it morally different. There are deep-seated political and social reasons for antipathy towards English incomers. However, there are also deep-seated political and social reasons for Islamophobia, and that does not exculpate anyone.

The only reason why other articles have "anti-X sentiment" is because, for example "Romanianphobia" is not a word. It is not our job to make up new phrases as they please us.

Snowded has raised some concerns about the citations. I will look at each in turn, and ask everyone to consider this again afterwards. BillMasen (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You very clearly suggested above that the anti-British sentiment article could be labeled as anti-British racism (not to mention a series of other references some of them in earlier exchanges. If you want to withdraw any and all implication then I am happy to let that one go, but don't pretend you didn't use the word. --Snowded TALK 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I said I didn't put the word in the article, nto that i didn't use the word. BillMasen (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well then its clear WP:SOAP in respect of the talk page isn't it? Might be an idea to withdraw your words, there may well be cases of racism, although all the material todate contains the odd accusation or report but no firm evidence. When there are use it properly, its too emotive to throw around casually. --Snowded TALK 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I already said my remarks were WP:FORUM, if you saw that part. I'm not going to debate them any more. BillMasen (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

2000 Swansea report

Is there any record that the complaints by the three women were upheld? I have looked but can't find anything. Given that it was 2000, and it was an approach, if it was true you would expect to see a report by now? --Snowded TALK 15:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia

An IP editor on this page stated: "I can't believe no one has written an article about australia, we pride ourselves on beating them in sports, love to get into fights with them and tell stories about how they mistreat ANZACS etc..." This rant (deleted from this page by another editor) raises a valid point about whether a properly referenced section about Anglophobia in Australia should be included in the article. One was included in a previous version, but was deleted because of uncertainties over whether "pom" referred to generally British or specifically English people, and over whether intense sport-related national rivalries (eg in cricket) could legitimately be described as a "phobia". The reintroduction of such a section needs to be considered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a Scot who once lived in Australia I can say in all honesty that I was never called a Pom. The word Pom was used specifically for English people. I actually had Aussies explain this to me. I noticed that Snowded had asked for a page move to anti-English sentiment. If we want the strong rivalry betweem Australia and England to be included in this article then Snowded's idea would fit perfectly for it. Having anti-English sentiment does not always mean having a phobia about them, so a page name change would surely make for a better and more accurate article. Jack forbes (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your point is valid, the crap from the IP editor irrelevant. What is the point in quoting from it? The sporting rivalry betwen England and Australia should be mentioned IMHO, whether its anti-English I have my doubts. A spot of schadenfreude at beating the English is hardly anti-English. Justin talk 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP editor raised a point which I addressed. Let's just move on, find some refs, see what they say, and decide what if anything needs to be done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, could you point out the previous text and references referring to Anglophobia in Australia that were deleted. I'd be interested in seeing the reasons given for deletion, cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added here (June 2008) and removed here (June 2009). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Had a wee look at google books and came up with this. It mentions the English only being called Poms with a little additional information on anglophobia in Australia. Jack forbes (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. There are also this, this, this, this and this... and no doubt more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There are a few sources there confusing Poms with British and others that don't. As I said, I was never called a Pom in all the years I worked there and I believe my google book source explains better why it only refers to the English. Should there be a section added on Australian anglophobia? Jack forbes (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think there should, recognising that the consensus previously was to define the term quite widely to include sentiments short of outright hatred. I also think that there are sufficient refs that define "pom" as English rather than British to justify inclusion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion, I've reintroduced a revised section on Australia and NZ. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Iran

Can someone please add info on Iran's hostility and suspicion toward English people. Examples ; 1953 Operation Ajax coup which ousted democratic govt. of Iran and put in place the dictator Shah. Also the Anglo Persian Oil Company funneled a lot of Iran's natural resource commodity - oil. The English embassy was raided also, and almost forgot there was a Persian-Anglo war centuries back, when Persia was feuding with regional powers such as Russia and Britain. There must be a ton of info,, these are but a few I can think of at this time. thanks, and by this comment I mean no disrespect to Anglosaxons, it is just for wikipedia purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. We need to find some firm references on which to base a section. So far I've found this article from the Washington Post, which makes specific use of the term and its history, as does this from The Times. Also this, this and this. Plenty to go on, I think. Although the term seems to be mainly used in Iran for hostility towards Britain rather than to England, we need to recognise that the most common term for hatred of / hostility towards Britain is, in fact, Anglophobia rather than, say, Britophobia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Glendower/Glwynwr

"per BRD" is hardly informative. May I ask why you objected to my edit? The English-speaking newspapers did, in fact call MG "the Sons of Glendower", and this is the English Wikipedia. The article on Munchen is called Munich. The article on Niclas Koppernigk is called Nicolaus Copernicus. The article on Sir Benfro is called Pembrokeshire. I don't understand why MG shouldn't also obey the rule of commun usage. BillMasen (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Gruniad translated "Meibion Glyndyr" [sic] as "Sons of Glyn Dwr". Further the article on Owain Glyndŵr is entitled Owain Glyndŵr, so it is accepted by Wikipedia that Owain Glyndŵr is the usual use of the name. The purpose of the translation appears to be to translate 'Meibion'. Btw, my edit summary was significantly more helpful than yours - there wasn't one (and no-one calls him "Glwynwr"). Daicaregos (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, so one newspaper calls him that name. Tell me, if I find a larger number of citations with "sons of Glendower", are you going to accept that? Or is there any other objection, in line with WP policy, that you would care to elucidate before I go to the trouble? I do not take great pleasure from dealing with your petulant approach to "discussion", so I'd like to know whether I'm wasting my time; that is, whether you are going to revert it for some other reason in the future. BillMasen (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just 'one newspaper', it is the newspaper citation used as a reference for that paragraph. Forgive me, but as your original post said "The English-speaking newspapers did, in fact call MG "the Sons of Glendower"..." I assumed you were referring to the one you had used as a reference. As for my "petulant approach to "discussion" " - I responded to each of the points you raised without finding it necessary to resort to childish name calling. Please be WP:CIVIL in future. As you ask, even if you had not changed '(Owain) Glyndŵr' to 'Glendower', the change made (highlighting Meibion Glyndŵr's motivation from "cultural and economic concerns" to "partly by economic concerns") is not substantiated by either reference. Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from User talk:Daicaregos#Glendower/Glwynwr. Daicaregos (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to start a discussion, how about you learn to spell Glyndwr? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.89.236 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

War of Jenkins' Ear

ANGLOPHOBIA ON WIKIPEDIA I was looking through the history section, when i came across the discussion tab for the War of the Jenkins ear, describing the English as bias, liars, and mocking English history, basically downgrading English military capabilities, i was wondering if an administrator or someone could please sort this out it has also been spreading across other historic pages, where certain users are targeting Britain more specifically England and rewriting battle results as indecisive or exaggerating defeats i thought that if i posted this comment on here it would come across more effectively, maybe i might be wrong but could some users please check it out, especially the Jenkins ear discussion. Your's sincerely David! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.224.47 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain which article or articles you were looking at? It wasn't this one, because it doesn't have a History section and doesn't mention the War of Jenkins' Ear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the directions to the first problem in the discussion section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_of_Jenkins'_Ear) Restoration Work sub that was written it shows some users using to a degree stereo typical comments to describe British people such as this section of a comment made by Cosialscastells "the british always hide the lost wars with anglocentric propaganda" this might offend some people if they read through it. --86.184.224.47 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are comments made in 2009 on a talk page by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked - User:Cosialscastells. The guidelines for conduct on an article talk page are here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help it is much appreciated --86.184.224.47 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish History

Why is there an extensive section on the Irish Civil War, it seems inappropriate to me for an article on Anglophobia. Justin talk 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could try asking User:Kingstowngalway, who added it a few days ago. I added the tags - if no refs can be found which specifically link it to "Anglophobia", it could be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the link, so per WP:BRD I've removed it. He can bring the discussion here to justify its inclusion. Justin talk 11:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should remain in the article. The references could be better, but I think some of the information is relavent and obviously Ireland is no more free from Anglophobia than Scotland or Wales. BillMasen (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've brought back some of it. Perhaps it should go in anti-British sentiment?
Please review WP:BRD, it is more appropriate to have agreement to re-add material once challenged. I have slimmed it right down again to material that is germane. There needs to be a discussion on relevance, most of what you added was history, without adding context or improving understanding. Justin talk 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
There's really no need to pull out the rule-book on a non-edit war exchange of views. I have no problem with the version as edited by you. BillMasen (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
OK but it wasn't pulling the rule book out, I was merely trying to avoid an unnecessary edit war over what could easily be solved by dialogue. Just a comment that text does not convey emotion at all well. Justin talk 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"context"

As long as there is no source establishing the relevance of the "context", it is editorialising on the part of a single editor. As far as the source is concerned, it says the motivation was Welsh people being driven out of their homes. True it doesn't explicitly mention the welsh language, but i can't imagine why you wouldn't want that in the article. If that part actually bothers you I'll take it out. BillMasen (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its perfectly reasonable to provide context in an article of this nature. Also that text has been there so a long time so you are factually incorrect is saying that it is "editorialising on the part of a single editor". The source is very clear to qualify English with "cultural" and also "economic" which make it dubious as supporting material anyway, but if it is going to be there lets keep to the source. If we add in "decline" then we will need to create a context for that. --Snowded TALK 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no source establishing its relevance, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you think it's the most reasonable thing in the world. Unless you find one, there's nothing to talk about. BillMasen (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you just don't like it. The material is easily verified --Snowded TALK 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I am disputing its relevance to a few fanatics blowing up people's houses in the 20th century. Noone is suggesting that it didn't happen. All you have to do is establish the relevance of these laws to 20th/21st century anglophobia. Citing these statutes just isn't enough. BillMasen (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Its relevant to the Welsh section overall, and clearly appropriate. I note that you think the current citations are not enough and you are entitled to your opinion as always. I don't agree so lets see what other editors think. The second homes protest was not about blowing up people's houses by the way, some of the campaigners used arson as a tactic. Try not to exaggerate for effect it doesn't help the article or the response of other editors to your input. --Snowded TALK 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They weren't bombed, they were firebombed. Well?
There really is no way around establishing its relevance with sources. See WP:OR and WP:Syn, as well as WP:V. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. BillMasen (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Arson Bill, and in the main care was taken to see the cottages were unoccupied at the time. We have had this debate before and we know that you have a strong POV based on your interpretation of personal encounters in Wales. As to the rest of your post, as I say its your opinion. I disagree, given that a lot of the issues relate to language and culture we need to be balanced in presenting the article. I have no intention of coming up with anything else at the moment, I'm waiting for other editors to get involved in the discussion.
This article is about Anglophobia, not about Meibion Glyndŵr. If you know of any reliable source saying that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses please provide it here, or add it to the article. Otherwise, I for one would appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from simply making things up to suit your POV. Either here, or on the article itself - where the 'exaggerations' have already been (rightfully) reverted. It would make for a much more pleasant environment were it possible to trust that the things other editors said were true. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the moral difference between using explosives and arson. And there were other nationalist groups that did use bombs. So while MG was conflated with other groups, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse me of "making things up". I don't think I ever said that I had bad personal encounters in Wales, so that attempt at ad hominem falls flat.
Given that the expansion of this article was obstructed every step of the way by asking for sources for the most obvious of statements, I don't think it's too much to ask that you source something obviously contentious. BillMasen (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I simply don't care where you see moral differences. I have zero interest in your opinions. This is an encyclopaedia. It has rules by which we have to abide. One of those rules is here. Please read it. The other nationalist groups that did use bombs to which you allude were decades before Meibion Glyndŵr, and they didn't blow people's houses up either. People's houses were not blown up. Saying that they were is lying. Is it so difficult for you understand? Please stop lying. If you know of any reliable sources saying that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses please provide it here. Otherwise, please keep your opinions about moral differences to yourself. Daicaregos (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You grow a little hot. Have a read of WP:civil. I can't help it if you don't like the fact that your nationalism is not actually as pure as the driven snow (and it may interest you to know that a militant group did place a bomb at someone's house). This is not a forum, and so far neither have you have done anything to establish the relevance of the text which I deleted. BillMasen (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I dislike liars. Saying someone is a liar when they are lying does not breach WP:civil.
Yes, it does interest me to know that a militant group did place a bomb at someone's house. That is why I have asked you (repeatedly and specifically) to provide a reliable source to confirm your assertion that Meibion Glyndŵr blew up people's houses. Which you have singularly failed to do. Why not? Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I mistakenly said that they bombed houses, when, in fact, the misunderstood angels firebombed people's houses. I don't particularly care if you think I was lying; I simply point it out for the benefit of others who might be reading. It amuses me that you are more offended by this than by, you know, burning down people's houses. (Mudiad_Amddiffyn_Cymru bomb in the garden of the local fascist oppressor (police constable)). BillMasen (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A garden is not 'people's houses'. MAC is not Meibion Glyndŵr. Just can't stop yourself, can you? It's pathetic. Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Firebomb is a kind of bomb. This one was outside his house; the intent is the same. I know you'd really like me to shut up about a topic which you WP:own, but it's not up to you. BillMasen (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to carry on as far as I'm concerned, as long as what you say is true. Just stop making things up. You have no idea how close to the house the bomb was. His garden, and the article (not a reliable source, by the way, which you still haven't provided) said it was in a garden, not planted in a house, could have been 500m long for all we know. Now you're making up stuff about intent. How do you know what the intent was? Maybe they didn't like carrots. The incident with MAC and the arson by Meibion Glyndŵr were decades apart, and you've established no connection between the two. Just stick to the facts, as verified by reliable sources, then no-one will accuse you of lying - because you won't be. Daicaregos (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't let him provoke you Dai. He's got a point of view and he wants to craft the words to support that. He is not worth the effort other than correcting the facts. Bill, the relevance of the Welsh Not and the elimination of Welsh from the courts is clearly relevant to actions and attitudes. You don't think so fine, but you are not the final authority (thank God given your editing style). Lets see what other editors think. --Snowded TALK 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is that some context and background is helpful to readers. However, I'm not sure that the sentence "Throughout the centuries with the suppression of the Welsh language in almost every public sphere, including in schools with the use of the Welsh Not, the Welsh speaking population was gradually Anglicised and reduced to a linguistic minority of roughly 20 percent of the total population of Wales today" is actually helpful in the context of this article. It expands upon the previous sentence about the use of the language, but it doesn't tie it any closer to the specific topic of "Anglophobia", which is what this article is about. Diminished use of a language cannot be assumed, without evidence, to be directly linked to any form of xenophobia, and I think that sentence is unnecessary and could be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The citation for that sentence includes "This period is associated with that most hated symbol of English cultural oppression, the Welsh Not, or Welsh Note, a means of forcing Welsh children to speak English at school." Is that not enough? Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to modifying the language, just opposed to removing it to create a context free and thus biased perspective --Snowded TALK 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the part of that ref which is left out of the article - that the Welsh Not was seen as a "most hated symbol of English cultural oppression" - is actually more relevant to this article than the text which is in the article. I don't think that the ref to Tudor actions on the use of the language is particularly relevant, as the article doesn't link it in any way to xenophobia or hatred. So, perhaps I would reword the sentence along the lines of: "The Welsh language was suppressed in almost every public sphere, with, for example, the use of the Welsh Not in schools being seen as a hated symbol of English oppression."[1] Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, much more apposite --Snowded TALK 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well done, that establishes the relevance of the Welsh Not. Now, what about this part: The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 also known as the "Acts of Union", passed by the Parliament of England, annexed Wales to the Kingdom of England, and replaced the Welsh language and Welsh law with the English language and English law. cited only to the statute database. That only establishes that the act happened, nothing else. BillMasen (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It establishes necessary context for the sentences that follow, and should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think all contentious material should be sourced. However, at least now part of it is sourced, and I'm sick of arguing. BillMasen (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Stop Anglophobia' Leicester Protest

Regarding deletion of Anglophobia in England section by Snowded, reason stated Inadequately sourced, what sources would be required to include this incident and protest? (New to wikipedia, so on a learning curve, your assistance would be appreciated, thanks). Æthelred (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:RS to get an idea. You used a web site from a partisan group, that is never enough --Snowded TALK 17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Snowded for the link and information. I will edit and include the topic as an assertion from the English Shieldwall website, as per 'Documenting your sources' (Some Sources Apply Only in Specific, Limited Circumstances). Æthelred (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You will have to show notability as well, its not going to be enough without a newspaper report at least --Snowded TALK 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find any newspaper links (online at least) - the only evidence is from the Shieldwall website, the YouTube video and the Facebook event page. Is there no other way to include it that I am overlooking? It is relevant to the page, and is the only protest of its nature I can find.
Aside from that, I could simply use the Leicester Mercury link regarding burning of the St George's flag and racial abuse of the pub landlord as an example of Anglophobia in England providing that is viable.. Æthelred (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If its not even reported in a newspaper then its not notable. The Leicester Mercury does not support the wording you originally reported and to be honest a pub landlord reporting that he was racially abused in a provincial newspaper is not notable either. You need to focus on getting some real evidence to insert the material and two of the articles you have created have no real references either. As you are a newbe editor I haven't nominated them for deletion, but without some reliable sources soon they will be, --Snowded TALK 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglophobia in Canada

I was kind of surprised there wasn't a Canadian section to this article, regarding anti-english sentiment by French Canadians. (although to me it seems to be more oriented towards anti-british resentment than to resentment of the english language in general). If no one else plans to create this section, I might, but is this the right place for such a topic - if not, where is? Thanks a bunch :) --Flipandflopped (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-British sentiment, unsurprisingly, is discussed at the article on anti-British sentiment, as the header of this article states. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that, I just thought that maybe the article was more oriented towards it's meaning as resentment of people of british lingual origin rather than the english language in general, my mistake ;). I'll start my section and see where I put it after. --Flipandflopped (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article title

The article has just been moved - without discussion - from Anglophobia to Anti-Anglicism. I had never heard the latter term. Anti-Anglicisme is apparently used in France, such as here, but to describe a different phenomenon, that of opposition to the over-use of the English language. This article deals with hostility to English people - not at all the same thing. So, it should either be moved back to the old title, or - another issue for discussion - perhaps merged with the existing article on Anti-British sentiment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Better yet would be Anti-English sentiment, which would be WP:CONSISTENT with virtually all other articles on sentiment against a particular race, ethnicity or nation. Red Slash 08:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be a big improvement on what we have now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid User:Red Slash has been going around globally (it seems) changing xxxxphobia articles to titles of their own invention. I have just reversed one they made to Russophobia which was moved to the poorly defined Anti-Russian sentiment. Was there any discussion (whether involving Red Slash or not) about making this move from "Anglophobia"? Unless there was such a thing, I would suggest reversing the move and *then* discussing what the title should be. There is, btw, quite a difference between "Anglophobia" and "Anti-British (or anti-English) sentiment". Alfietucker (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've found a way to do it, that's what I've done. Open to further discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of funny to have Anglophobia but then have Anti-British sentiment. Our naming policy requires titles to be WP:CONSISTENT. Red Slash 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, it's kind of funny that someone who tried to move this article to the title "Anti-Anglicism" should direct us to a policy subsection Use commonly recognizable names! Seriously, though, "Anti-British sentiment" - as clearly explained in the lead - is quite different from "Anglophobia", and therefore addresses different issues. There is a case, rather, to keep both articles for clearly focused content, rather than muddle them together to hopelessly mix up issues and risk creating laundry lists. Alfietucker (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A merger between Anglophobia and Anti-British sentiment has been discussed before, when it was not agreed. We could consider it again, but as Alfietucker says there are arguments against it. Moving this article to Anti-English sentiment has also been discussed before and not agreed. Again, it could be discussed again - and not done unilaterally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Crappy propaganda article

This article is, to use an English term, a "load of bollocks" and was obviously written by an Englishman. Funny how it has a huge "ENGLISH PEOPLE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!!!!" notice at the top-right corner of the page. No, anti-English sentiment is not discrimination. The English are not an oppressed people and never have been. Rather, they have usually been the oppressors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.72.158 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This article does not seek to argue whether or not the English are "oppressed" or "oppressors" - it simply records examples of anti-English attitudes, as part of a much more wide-ranging group of articles here on discrimination. If you are able to improve the article, using reliable sources, please do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this ill-mannered IP address may have a point. This article isn't about discrimination, it's about prejudice.
They aren't the same thing at all. The Iranian and Israeli politicians quoted obviously have a beef with England, which is clearly a bad thing. Scottish football fans beating up English people during tournaments is clearly a bad thing, and is clearly prejudice, but does anyone seriously think that there is widespread discrimination against English people in Wales or Scotland? Or Israel or Iran for that matter? There are no laws saying that you can't marry an English person, or that English people are exempted from employment law. That would be discrimination.
On the other hand, discrimination towards a group does not have to arise from prejudice. Some white firemen sued an American city because the city promoted black firemen to fulfill a racial quota, not because of merit. Regardless of whether you think the city was right to do this (I don't), does anyone truly think that they did it because they think white people are evil?
I propose renaming the wikiproject to 'prejudice'. If we can't be bothered to organise that, let's just take this article out of it.Risingrain (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Already discussed, I think, at Portal talk:Discrimination and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination. You seem to use a very specific definition of "discrimination", which not everyone would share. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course the English are oppressed, they are the most oppressed of all. Those oppressors are less than 1% of the population, the historical ruling class. The remainder have always been as oppressed as any colony, and still are. The difficulty for them is that there is no escape, nor any acknowledgement that there is Anglophobia in England against this ruling minority. For all the ridiculous whining and moaning in other other territories, they at least have been able to escape.--80.254.147.148 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said! Through history, Scots oppressed Scots, Scots oppressed other nations and peoples overseas, Scots are deeply implicated in these things although they feel they can try to pretend otherwise. They seem to export mostly untruths to an unwitting international audience about their own historical involvements and actions.94.196.123.150 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Run By Celtic Fanatics Who Have a Petty Hatred of the English!

Look at biographical articles- if someone is English, or of English descent- 'English' will hardly ever be highlighted. If someone is Welsg/Irish/Scottish, it will be highlighted.

Here's an example of such pettiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life 70.238.217.104 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(I bet some Celt will delete this...) The words: shoulder; chip; huge... spring to mind. Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't the world, and most people know that it is not a reliable source of unbiased information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.217.104 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 June 2014 ‎

See WP:UKNATIONALS. And, next time, please sign your posts using four of these: ~ Diolch yn fawr. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bitterness about centuries of genocide is not a chip on a shoulder. 199.180.97.158 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: "Anti-Scottish Sentiment" - what a pathetic propaganda piece that attempts to be.94.196.123.150 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

argentina

The argentinians always have had a strong anglophobic sentiment principally after the falkland war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.73.19 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That aspect is covered at Anti-British sentiment, an article which overlaps with this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IRA

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The IRA did not exclusively bomb England. A bomb went off by accident in a Glasgow pub in the 1970s. (31.50.131.19 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC))

I can't find a source for that claim. There is plenty of evidence that the IRA targeted England specifically, not Scotland or Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The IRA planted a bomb in the Shetland Islands in May 1981: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ira-plot-to-kill-the-queen-1694884 (213.122.111.244 (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC))
OK - a better source is here, and it is mentioned briefly in our article on Sullom Voe. Clearly, the target was not Scottish people. However, the wording in this article probably does need a slight tweak. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of England's two wars against the US and England's none-too-subtle support of the Confederacy?

"Anglophobia" wasn't just for Irish immigrants. Other Americans were motivated by England's two wars against America, sponsorship of hostile Indian tribes in the Ohio Valley and Midwest until the mid-1800s, support for the Confederacy during the American Civil War, attempts to annex territory in the western US...

And before anyone sniffs about "That was the UK, not 'England'" I'll point out that the UK was --- and remains --- completely dominated by England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.210.38 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Poms

Firstly the word is spelt Pom, not Pomme. If the latter is correct I have certainly never seen it. The article leaves the clear impression that Pom is a pejorative term. It is not. Whingeing Pom is certainly pejorative, but Pom is irreverent at worst, not a pejorative. Pom is no more a slur yhan the term filthy English makes describing someone as English a slur. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Guiffan, Jean (2004-03-18). Histoire de l'Anglophobie en France: de Jeanne d'Arc à la Vache Folle (in French). Rennes: Terre de Brumes. ISBN 2843622298. Retrieved 2008-07-20.
  2. ^ Oxford Dictionary of English, OUP, 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-English_sentiment/Archive_3&oldid=1216177965"