Talk:Anglosphere

Ireland

The comparative absence of Ireland from this article is very striking. By any reasonable definition, Ireland is surely part of the Anglosphere. Historically, genetically, culturally and linguistically, the links are overwhelming. It's true that, since the 1920s, Ireland has sought to distance itself from the UK, but it remains a fact that the UK is by far Ireland's biggest trading partner and cultural influence. The determination of some posters to deny Ireland's "British heritage" seems overtly political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not the English-speaking world article. This is about of a set of English-speaking countries that cooperate militarily and have shared national security programs. As Ireland is militarily neutral, it is not included. Plantdrew (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia: "The Anglosphere is a group of English-speaking nations that share common cultural and historical ties to England or the United Kingdom broadly,[1][2] and which today maintain close political, diplomatic and military co-operation." To be fair, although Ireland complies with the vast majority of this definition, it does not maintain "close military co-operation" with the Anglosphere. However, according to Wikipedia, Ireland's Defence Force has purchased most of its ships from UK shipyards, all of its aircraft from UK, US or European manufacturers, and most of its military equipment from the same sources. This clearly suggests a reasonable degree of co-operation. "Close", perhaps not; but we are splitting hairs over a secondary component of the definition. From the perspective of (say) a Chinese person, Ireland is very obviously a part of the broader "Anglo" world. I will concede, however, that the article does allude to Ireland's presence in a possible second tier of the Anglosphere. But we should be clear that it is only Ireland's insistence upon "military neutrality" that keeps it apart. It will be interesting to see how Ireland responds to the increasing demands for an EU army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to update the map then , as it includes the Republic of Ireland in the Anglosphere as well. Mrsunnybones (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The map is based on Bennett's definition, which includes Ireland in the core. DrKay (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This conflicts with the rest of the article, however. 73.68.232.233 (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Heh. I just checked the talk archive and see that I've been arguing against maps in this article since 2008. A major problem is that there is no agreed upon definition, nor agreed upon list of who's in the Anglosphere and who isn't. Any map used in the article is necessarily going to privilege one person's or one group's definition/list over other persons and groups. Admittedly, using James Bennett's list isn't wholly arbitrary, but I still see this as a serious problem, Ireland being a prime example of a country included by Bennett but excluded by many other commentators. In general, I also don't find WP's use of world maps of country groupings to be especially enlightening in most cases. I'd still prefer just not having a map in this article. CAVincent (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just buying stuff is far from the Five Eyes level of cooperation. Kaihsu (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of England

Hi Sirfurboy, regarding this edit—

The majority of the North American colonies were founded as English crown colonies that were chartered by the Kingdom of England. One of their primary complaints during the 18th century was that they believed their rights as Englishmen were being violated. The British Empire itself was built on top of the English Empire, and owes most of its own foundations to the Kingdom of England.

Even Mycock said that "Anglosphere enthusiasts across the five core states prioritise a narrative of English, then British [italics added], political development." 021120x (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

References

And as I said, it was unnecessary detail in the lead as it is covered by the existing text, "British Empire." A term that was already in use from Elizabethan times.

[John] Dee envisaged 'this incomparable Brytish Empire' as reaching to the north-east coast of America and the coasts of France and Germany and derived these expansive claims from the exploits of King Arthur and the Welsh Prince Madoc, who had allegedly discovered America four centuries before Columbus (Armitage, 2004:274).

But again, if you want to discuss the nuances of that, the place to be editing is in the main text and not the lead. There is a lot to be done to this article, but making the lead not summarise the main text is not the way to do it. Fix the main and the lead naturally follows.

As for the five core states, I agree that sources consistently pick out those 5, but your edit to the lead restricted the idea of common law inheritance to those 5 key states, which is not what Bennet says. He, instead, has a wider view of innermost states. I left that one alone however, as the whole topic of definition is one of the areas that this article could usefully use some work. I suspect that Humpty Dumpty was involved in defining this concept.

• Armitage, David. (2004) The Elizabethan Idea of Empire. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14, 269–77.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Country comparison tables

I removed the tables per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables, the conclusion of which reads: There is consensus to remove country comparison charts from articles about international relations as a general principle on the basis of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:UNSOURCED, and WP:NOTSTATS. Comparison charts may be included on a case-by-case basis, but editors should err on the side of exclusion and discuss on the talk page of the article in question when unsure. I removed them for that reason, and the onus is on whoever seeks to reinsert them. 021120x just did so. @021120x: Alright then, make your case why these tables should be included in this article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@021120x: Please make your case here, and get a consensus for.its inclusion first. Simply stating it can be included on a case-by-case basis doesn't make the case. You have to get a consensus before adding it. BilCat (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

BilCat, I have added nothing. I reverted a substantial change made by a user who put forth no effort to discuss the change or to make a case for it's removal first. 021120x (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made the decision to no longer participate in the editing or discussion of this article. To everyone involved in this discussion: Please do not ping me again. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in this table qualifies as WP:Unsourced or WP:OR. Furthermore, most of the pages discussed on that RFC still have their charts in place. This page seems to have been specifically targeted for some unwarranted reason. 021120x (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure does. For starters, what doesn't make the case is executing a substantial change completely without discussion. As for targeting, is seems to be a misapplication of principles discussed elsewhere for an entirely different context. The question was "Should we remove or keep country comparison charts/tables on bilateral relations articles?", "An example being Russia–United States relations". With regard to this quite different sort of article, the WPs cited are iffy vis-à-vis the tables (and some just don't apply). The charts are not intended as "comparison charts", but as easy-access information. The smaller table is crisp and informative, useful. The larger one could be trimmed a bit, removing at least the ephemeral (e.g. political party in power), or it could, if consensus is reached, be deleted entirely. Declaring that the onus is now on anyone who disagrees to mount a full defense is hardly a collegial MO likely to lead to a felicitous conclusion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the anglosphere but does identify five countries that are usually considered the core anglosphere. But there were two tables excised, not one. It is certainly unclear why we need two comparison tables that focus on only a subset of the anglosphere countries.

The next question is, if we are to have comparison tables, what is sensible for inclusion in this article? Flags? Probably not, Coats of arms? certainly not. Large urban areas? nope. Religions? doubtful. Indeed the whole second table has an awful lot of table guff. I don't see why we need any of it. Thus, the second table under the heading "Comparing core Anglosphere" should stay out. The first table is also poorly focussed for this article I think. GDP has some relevance, but I don't think editors have considered what should be compared in relation to the information in sources. I am not against a table of the size of that first table, but it needs a bit more thought.

Finally, per WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've hesitated to comment on this, but largely agreeing with Sirfurboy. The smaller table, in possibly revamped form, could maybe be a helpful comparison-at-a-glance of relative population size, land area, wealth, and military spending. The larger table formerly under "Comparing core Anglosphere" was mostly clutter - anything useful in it was already in the smaller table, and no one is enlightened on the article's subject by "comparing" coats of arms, capital cities, currencies, etc. If we do end up with a table, I'd strongly oppose including any countries but the five core ones, as there's general agreement on the which countries are in the core and beyond that it becomes murky. CAVincent (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this application of WP:ONUS is that the content - which had never heretofore been disputed - was already in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, substantial changes should be discussed before being fully implemented. And, this is beside the fact that WP:ONUS is in relation to content that is in dispute for reasons related to verifiability, which is irrelevant here.

Regarding the second table, as many times as I have looked at this article, I never once referred to the first table. The second table was clearly identified in its own section on the page and was far more useful and information-rich. If only one table is kept, it should be the second table. 021120x (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

And so you just reverted it all back in again, based on your reading of what the status quo is. From WP:QUO: Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring. I suggest you self revert.

Meanwhile on the substantive issue, where you argue for the second table: what is the rationale for having, e.g., coats of arms of five countries in an article on the encyclopaedic subject of the Anglosphere? And that question needs answering for all of those entries. The second table consumes one third of the whole article space. Why is it even there? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The second table is absurdly excessive and should be removed. DrKay (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that the large chart is too large, it's useful to have it up for easy reference until consensus is reached. Also, "substantial changes should be discussed before being fully implemented" makes sense procedurally. Once duplications with the small chart are deleted and unnecessary information is removed (flags? coats of arms for sure, urban areas, political parties), and the remaining categories are refined (e.g. religions with adherents in low single-digit % can hardly be described as "main"), the solution should pretty much present itself. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, "substantial changes should be discussed before being fully implemented" makes sense procedurally. This quote is not in WP:PRESERVE even though the editor said "per WP:PRESERVE". What WP:PRESERVE actually says is:

If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page.

I believe the editors who challenged the content did just that. They followed WP:PRESERVE. The edit warring to re-assert the table, however, does not follow WP:ONUS nor WP:QUO, which says, Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring. Now you say it is useful to have that version up for reference. But reference is easy. Here it is, for reference: [1]. It is not necessary to edit war the table back into the article for us to see what we are talking about.

You say "until consensus is reached". By my count, 5 editors have said the big table should not be in the article, one has put it back in, arguing it should be there, and you say you agree it is too large but some of it should be there. Counting you as a support for having it in, that is 5:2. At what point do we say consensus has been reached? At what point do we say an edit to restore the table was against that consensus? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"you say you agree it is too large but some of it should be there." That's not what I said. "Counting you as a support for having it in, that is 5:2." Which is a false count if I'm included in either category, because I haven't come down in favor of one or the other; "it [the large table] could, if consensus is reached, be deleted entirely" is as close as I've come. But this sort of bickering is pointless. Back to the actual issue you raise. I had expected that consensus would be reached after a brief period of reasoned collective discussion. It may be that the initial ill-considered deletion of both tables with weak justification at best spoiled this space for even-tempered reasoning. Whatever the cause, it's a zone of unnecessary unpleasantness not likely to produce the give-and-take necessary for actual consensus. As for my opinion, I favor keeping the small chart for reasons stated. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I did not mean to imply that you were wholly in favour of the large table. I was merely pointing out hta even if we counted your words as support for it, the consensus was already clear that it should not be there. As you have clarified that you are in favour of the small table, making the count 6:1 in favour of removing the large one, I shall now remove the large one.

Regarding the smaller table, I think we need to now consider what information it makes sense to compare there. This should really be based on comparisons in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Curious that editors are perfectly fine with the identical chart on the CANZUK page. Or are you planning to remove that one as well? 021120x (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing it and a lot more from that page, but I don't think it is right to take a content dispute from one page and disrupt another so I will leave it alone for now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet the editor who disrupted this page with a discussion from another was justified? Either the identical chart from the sister page must go, or this one must be restored:

If we use multiple standards, then we should have some specific, relevant reason for why we do so. Otherwise, only a single notability standard is used for every topic. The reason why using double standard is usually frowned upon is that the differences in the standards used on two things of the same sort are often arbitrary and merely an instance of special pleading.

021120x (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis

In this edit, [2], 021120x, you restore information again that was removed by two different editors. That you disagree is clear, but I also remind you that per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thus this should have been discussed in talk. Also, you removed the maintenance template raising the synth issue, but per WP:MTR It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first. The template is there because what you intriduced with that run of sources is WP:SYNTH. To be clear then, the synth policy states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
So what you have done here is classic synthesis. The statement you are contesting to include is this:[3], although you have modified "consistently" to "tend to." You support the idea that anglosphere countries tend to rank each other highest with a set of individual surveys, but we do not have any subject matter expert asserting as much in a source. This smacks of original research. We have a statement, which is now your statement, because you modified it from the first removed version. You support your statement with some surveys that show that in those particular surveys, those countries rated those other countries highest. You also introduced at least one source today that belies this: [4]. That source merely placed the UK and US in the top ten! And that shows the problem. Your evidence is cherry picked and invites the reader to reach a conclusion that is not, in fact, in any of these sources. It is classic synthesis, and thus is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please desist from the ad hominem language. Your accusatory tone shows quite clearly that you are not assuming good faith in your edits.

1) These are not "my" sources. They were already in the article, and I did not put them there.

2) I neither picked nor introduced the new source you referenced, it was introduced by the preceding editor.

By these points alone, I will dismiss everything else that was written in this diatribe above.

Regarding that paragraph, it would perhaps make more sense to move its contents to the Opinion Polls section. 021120x (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Two cents: I'm not sure that the article is effected much either way by inclusion or exclusion of a sentence like "Public opinion research has found that people in the five core Anglosphere countries consistently rank each other's countries as their country's most important allies in the world." It seems pretty clear, both in the remaining text in the article as well as lived experience, that there are significant cultural affinities among the core nations in addition to close and long-standing military, political and economic ties. The point is still made without the sentence. It would be nice if we could get a good WP:RS for it's inclusion, of course, but the article is fine without the statement.

Moving / integrating this paragraph into the Opinion Polls section is not a bad idea at all.

As a third cent: I'm pretty sure everyone here is acting in good faith to improve the article.

CAVincent (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You must not use survey data as a RSS by itself to say what the survey result means, which is what you are doing. That is OR.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate the sources or require deleting the entire sentence. You can simply change the wording to say 'source x says...', which is what the Opinion Polls section consists of. 021120x (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What source x says is your opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. 021120x (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It is in the strict wikipedia sense of original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. You need a source that supports the introduced text not introduce text that is your interpretation of the primary sources. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Opinion Polls, Lowy Poll

The 2023 Lowy Poll was incorrectly cited as providing some kind of evidence for the claim "A 2023 poll by the Lowy Institute similarly indicated that New Zealand was the country most positively viewed by Australians, with Canada ranking second, the UK third and the United States twelfth". Of these statements, only the claim about NZ can be verified. I tried to save it by altering the text to say something which was generally true, because the poll is released each year and the results will show countries moving around, being included and excluded - the previous claim, which was a mishmash of multiple polls cited against the wrong year, is just going to recur. Apparently that is improper so I have just deleted it. Unfortunately I was logged out when I did so. In retrospect, I am very sceptical of the value of opinion polls in this article. It feels very much like cherry-picking whatever data we like to get whatever opinion we want. In a recent Pew survey, Australia came fourth last out of a diverse range of countries in their opinion of the US. It doesn't really seem proper to draw out only those results that provide some kind of support for the idea of interanglospheric amicability and to ignore the results that draw it into question. And even if Australia views the US warmly in some year, but only as warmly as France views the US that year, what does that mean? I think it's better to delete the whole section and let some analyst spend some time with the statistics to find out whether opinion polling data supports the notion that opinion polling data provides evidence for the anglosphere. Kominscarm (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't know what the polls are doing there. If there is a secondary sourced claim that these nations favourably view each other we should cite that. If we are trying to make that point with opinion polls, that are primary sources for that claim, then we have WP:OR. We are doin our own synthesis of sources. I expect the whole section can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thirded. While I'd say there are clearly affinities among the core (or "interanglospheric amicability", a delightful phrase), the Opinion Polls section as it currently stands seems like a bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and likely cherry-picked data. If there were good reliable sources analyzing the data and drawing conclusions from the data, that would likely be worth including, but we shouldn't be just citing data and drawing conclusions ourselves (or inviting article readers to do so). As it stands, the section could go. CAVincent (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone ahead and removed it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)