Talk:Irish nationalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Improving the article

@ManfredHugh, Canterbury Tail, and FDW777: Per Serial Number 54129's comments in the previous section, it's up to us to discuss how to improve this article. The restored version is not of great quality. In fact, much of the early part consists of essay-type "personal" musings by one or more editors, and thereafter it quite quickly becomes just a general history of 19th- and 20th-century Ireland. The brief "Present day" section is, frankly, laughable. The ManfredHugh version was a laudable attempt to make the article more encyclopaedic, but IMO ultimately accentuated those two problems. So, a few thoughts:

• The lead: neither version has a lead that adequately summarises the article, but on balance I prefer ManfredHugh's version. The restored version is poorly worded, and makes some ambiguous statements ("Irish nationalism gave way (??) to many factions", "The chief division affecting nationalism in Ireland was religious"). I would change "the readiness of the Irish Parliamentary Party to compromise on autonomy ('Home Rule')" to something a little less POV, but otherwise I think ManfredHugh's lead works well.
• Starting point: to me, an obvious starting point for an article on nationalism would be the foundation of The Nation. Incredibly, the restored version makes no mention of The Nation or of Thomas Davis or its other contributors, except that the latter appear under "See also". ManfredHugh's version mentions them, but only in the context of the argument between Daniel O'Connell and the radicals in the Repeal Association. Alternative starting points would be the United Irishmen or Grattan's party, who were inspired by the French Revolution and the American Revolution, respectively, which are often viewed as the starting points of nationalism generally. These could be covered in a Background section, if 1842 was chosen as the starting date. Hugh O'Neill, the Confederates and the Jacobites are just too early to be included in the article (why them, and not Silken Thomas or Brian O'Neill?)
• Constitutional nationalism and physical force: the article ought to stress that these were two aspects of Irish nationalism. It ought to look at the totality of the relationships between them, rather than present them as antagonistic forces, or movements that alternated over time. O'Connell and Young Ireland were long-time allies, and the IRB was very influential in the early Home Rule movement, up to and including the rise of Parnell. This needs to be drawn out more.
• Nationalism and Catholicism: the identification of Irish nationalism with Catholic concerns (despite the involvement of Protestants such as Davis, Mitchel and Parnell) is fairly well represented in the restored version. It might perhaps lay more stress on the fact that the Home Rule movement was in essence a Catholic movement, and that Sinn Féiners and Volunteers/IRA were overwhelmingly Catholic (again with honourable exceptions).
• Cultural nationalism and the Land question: these are both covered in the article, but I think they could be better integrated into the narrative, rather than "oh by the way, this also happened".
• Northern Ireland: there is a lamentable failure to discuss nationalism in the North after 1921, the discrimination against the nationalist population by the Stormont government on the basis that they were "disloyal", the travails of the Nationalist Party, the various IRA campaigns, the emergence of the SDLP, and the struggle between the SDLP and Sinn Féin after the 1980s to be the main nationalist party in the North. For many readers, including those following links from Troubles-related articles, this is what they want to know about Irish Nationalism. This needs to be a major part of the article, and the 19th- and early 20th-century history needs to be correspondingly reduced.

Thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

While ManfredHugh's version of the lead contains more information, I think it gives a very narrow, political view of Irish nationalism, whereas the current lead with the sentence Irish nationalism celebrates the culture of Ireland, especially the Irish language, literature, music, and sports includes a significant part of Irish nationalism, it isn't just about politics. So some combination of both would work better. FDW777 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Can I as a preliminary establish 3 points?

(1) On a subject so broad and current, there can never be complete consensus as to how it should be discussed in encyclopaedic terms. We all have to operate within a range of tolerance. My contributions (which as of yesterday morning took the discussion up to Protestant-Catholic tenant-rights cooperation in Duffy's League of North and South, where, if things had to be paused, the reader might be left with some reasonable transition to the remainder of the earlier contributions), clearly were outside the ranges of tolerance of Scolaire and one other watcher who "voted" for a reversion.

(2) That's fine and they are right to express that. Their comments and the fact that they choose to revert to the entry as it was at the beginning of this month suggests that they operating with very different conceptions of what the subject of this article should be (what nationalism is in the Irish context) and of it means to discuss it in encyclopaedic terms.

(3) I mean no disrespect to the person or persons who fashioned the article as it existed. We are all volunteers in this. They did what they could in the time they were prepared to devote it, and got an article on this very important subject up and going. That's good. BUT a reversion back to the article as they left it is a judgement that the Wiki reader is (on balance) better served by discussion that, among other issues:

(a) presents nationalism as a "movement"; (b) projects that movement (not elements of nationalism, but the "movement" itself) back to at least the 17th century where it is described as "the native Gaelic Irish and the Old English banding together in common cause" (a banding which all histories of the period observe dissolved in a Confederate civil war); (c) from the outset uses highly positional language in relation to things the reader should not be expected to accept as a given (nationalists "celebrate the culture of Ireland"--who determines what the culture of Ireland is, or what it is to "celebrate" it?--major issues of contention between Irish nationalists themselves); (d) does recognise Irish Republicanism (whatever else it might be) as nationalist--which in my case Scolaire seemed to think such an elementary error ("the clue is in the title"); and (e) offers the reader less than half a dozen substantive sources.

(4) If, on balance (and I recognise these are always on balance judgements), this is thought to better serve the reader than the article as partially revised (whatever its other problems), then I don't know where to begin. I cannot meet Scolaire half way (or even all the way) as I might be inclined to do, unless he brings himself into view on the essential issues that his comments and his action in reverting the revisions have raised: namely what is the subject of this article (what is nationalism, and what is nationalism in the Irish context), and what are the parameters of its encyclopaedic treatment.

As to FDW777's comments above, these are all very welcome and can discussed (some issues would, I think, have been covered had I proceeded), but might Scolaire not consider first bringing some light on what are for him clearly the more fundamental issues.

Regards ManfredHugh (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

to discuss it in encyclopaedic terms is, to me at least, the whole problem. This was previously raised at Talk:Unionism in Ireland as well as here. Despite this, just yesterday this addition was made.

In the South it benefited from a protest vote against the "virulent anti-Catholicism" triggered by the Curia's formal restoration an episcopal hierarchy in England. But as the threat from the so-called "Papal aggression" controversy faded, "Cullen's support lapsed".

This is quite simply not acceptable prose for an encyclopedia article, and that it was added despite repeated objections from multiple editors regarding this style of writing shows there's a problem here. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If we cannot quote from The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History and in a way that identifies and references the language of the historical controversy being discussed--in this case the political reaction in England against the formal restoration of a Catholic hierarchy--where we are? Do you think the historian, Peter Gray, should not have described the political reaction against the Church in England (which was accompanied by rioting) as "virulently anti-Catholic"? Is your estimate of the reader such that they cannot be trusted with the quotation of partisan language--as in "the SO CALLED Papal aggression"-- because they might actually think that this is a characterisation they are being invited to accept?

Maybe you believe Gray is not offering a sufficient disclaimer in identifying the offending phrase as "so-called" and putting it in quotation. Fine I'll drop it. But in general I think it is an impoverishment of discussion, and not encyclopaedic, to avoid the revealing language actually employed in the course of historical events--as along as it is identified as such. But if you don't believe that it is clear in this case. Fine. But is this really why my edits have been reverted?ManfredHugh (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not what The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History says, or your other attempts to obfuscate the problem. The issue is, despite repeated criticism from other editors, that you are either unwilling or unable to use references to write acceptable prose for an encyclopedia article including section headings. For example in the diff cited, despite your headings having been repeatedly changed on Unionism in Ireland you add the heading "The League of North and South". However this isn't a factual name, as the text you added pointed out it's what Charles Gavan Duffy called the "Tenant Right League". That you keep trying to use essay-like headings rather than straightforward factual descriptions of sections is a problem. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@ManfredHugh: You said, As to FDW777's comments above, these are all very welcome and can discussed. I think you are referring to my (Scolaire's) comments in opening this thread. Well, if you think they can be discussed why didn't you address the comments, instead of moaning about the shortcomings of the current version – which I said at the outset is not great? Or you could put forward your own proposals for the focus and the structure of the article, and we could discuss those. Wikipedia is about collaboration; if you were willing to collaborate with us, you might find us willing to collaborate with you. Just saying "I was doing a great job and you reverted it all because you're mean" doesn't help (and, for the record, you were reverted by another user who isn't part of this discussion, because of your failure to engage with us). As it stands, there is no discussion on improving the article, except that FDW777 wants to retain the sentence about culture in the lead and you want to remove it, so there is no way forward. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Scolaire, where I am saying "I was doing a great job and you reverted it all because you're mean"? You have just made that up and put it in quotes. Nowhere have I boasted about "doing a great job" or said or implied you are "mean", as if I was a child. This is neither honest nor helpful.

I am willing to collaborate, I am willing to defer. If someone came up with completely new alternative, that would be a relief. All I have asked for is explanation of your position so I understand what your idea of an improvement would be. Am I wrong to do so?

You took the decision that the Wikipedia reader is better served--and that is the only interest at stake here--by the article as it stood before I wrote anything. As I have said, that's fine. You are perfectly entitled to make that judgement. All I have asked for is an explanation as why ON BALANCE you have decided that to be the case. I understand you may not be happy with choice--nor as things stand am I. But you made a decision.

Clearly you must have some criteria in doing. What are these?. To get things moving I have tried to do what I was probably remiss in not doing right at the beginning--to explain what I thought were problems with the article as I found it. Why, by the way, do you refer to this as "moaning"? If I try to explain that I have a problem with way in which nationalism is conceived in the original article (as a "political movement". and as something pre-dates the revolutionary concept of the nation as the sovereign people) that is "moaning"--as opposed to what? Your criticism of my pose as "purple"?

Clearly you believe I am on the wrong track. You seem to be operating with a very different conception/definition of what nationalism is (and actually also different from that implied in the original article). I have asked you now three or four times what this is--what do you think is the proper subject of this article. If you want collaborate, great but then we have to begin at the beginning. Even before discussing nationalism in the Irish concext, there has be some common understanding as to what nationalism is. If you think I have got that wrong, then I don't how meeting you on other point is going to make the difference. It will just be frustrating and results will not satisfy anybody.

So, please, in your view what is the proper subject of this article?

RegardsManfredHugh (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have said that I prefer your version of the lead, so I am happy with the definition of nationalism as "a political tradition that holds that the island of Ireland is the national territory of the Irish people, and should be comprised within a single Irish state." Where I part company with you is when you say that "nationalism (as understood in the literature) is claim of sovereignty over a territory for a 'people' as opposed to dynastic house or hereditary estate". I haven't found that definition in the literature. Would you consider Bismarck a nationalist? I would; yet he believed in the sovereignty of the house of Hohenzollern not only over Prussia but over all Germany, just as many Irish nationalists from Daniel O'Connell to John Redmond accepted the sovereignty of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha over Ireland. You imply that I don't see republicanism as a subset of nationalism. Of course I do, but the rejection of the "sovereign" (i.e. the monarchy) is the basis of republicanism, not of nationalism as a whole. Likewise, the appeal to "dead generations" is not a defining feature of Irish nationalism as a whole, though it is typically found in Irish republicanism. So I propose to start with the broad definition of nationalism that is implied in the lead of your version. Do you accept that? Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please indent discussions by starting your contribution with one colon more than the one before – in this case it will be three colons. You should put the colons before each new paragraph, and if you do, there's no need for a line break between paragraphs. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Scolaire, this is more like it. Yes, the case of Bismark can absolutely clarify what we should understand by nationalism.

Was Bismark a nationalist? You will not find that description of Bismark in any major biography, history or indeed in the his Wikipedia entry. What you will find is a description of a conservative and reactionary who, determined to secure defend the nur unter Gott prerogatives of the House of Hohenzollern in a distressingly liberal and democratic era, saw German nationalism both as a threat to be out ridden and as an impetus to be exploited. His relative success, of course, causes Bismark to become an icon of German nationalists but only because, from their perspective, he made the Hohenzollern Kingdom of Prussia the instrument of German unification, and the means by which the German people were able to exercise their sovereign right to a common state. This new state was never referred to as "Hohenzollern Reich", in way which we refer to the Danubian Monarchy as the "Hapsburg Empire", but the ultimate source of sovereignty within the Reich (crown or nation) remained an unresolved source of tension.

The issue here is NOT MONARCHY. When the Greeks rose against the Turks it wasn't to create a throne for Otto von Wittelsbach. When Romanian nationalists united the Danubian principalities it wasn't to create a kingdom for the house of Hohenzollern Sigmaringen. Nationalists can have all sorts of view as to the appropriate form or constitution of government: and may well inclined, in the name of "national unity" or "national values" (or diplomatic interests) to prefer a king over an elected President, or a dictator over a partisan assembly.

It has been said (on what basis I don't know) that Padraig Pearse favoured a constitutional monarchy in Ireland, with Prince Joachim, the youngest son of Kaiser Wilhelm II, as King. But if indeed he entertained that idea, you can be sure that Prince Joachim was the last person on his mind as he strode into the GPO. He was there to claim sovereignty for Irish people--the "nation" in whose name he declared a provisional government. Regardless of how they believe the nation can or should be represented, for the nationalist it is a people, conceived as a nation, who are sovereign.

This is way we don't refer Jacobites in Ireland or in Scotland as Irish or Scottish "nationalists" --although may have had impulses that later nationalists could appreciate as anti-English or patriotic.

And this is why I suggest "Whether by a secession, or a consolidation, of territories, [nationalism as in emerges int he 19th century] was understood as a claim to sovereignty on behalf, not of a dynastic house or of an hereditary estate, but of a 'people' unrepresented in the existing concert of states."

Are you with me thus far? If so, we are within the mainstream understanding of nationalism.

ManfredHugh (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about my typos in the proceeding--but you will have got the driftManfredHugh (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

All right, so I have answered the question you asked me to answer. I gave you my view of the proper subject for this article. Your response seems to suggest (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you will continue to use Pádraig Pearse as a benchmark for Irish nationalism. In that case, I'm afraid that what you said earlier is true: you and I can never meet half way. If accepting your definition is a precondition for discussing improvements to the article, then I am withdrawing from the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, No I am not saying that Pearse is a "benchmark for Irish nationalism" and am not sure what that would mean. No one person speaks for Irish nationalism (or any other ism).

I quote the 1916 Proclamation at the outset (1) partly because it is probably the most "consequential" statement of a nationalist position in Ireland (which is not to say that it is THE statement of Irish nationalism, or even the its most consummate statement--inasmuch as it is justification for a resort to arms it was at odds with the position of most people considering themselves Irish nationalist at the time); (2) partly because it is the one Irish nationalist declaration of which most readers will have heard. But these are not the main reasons.

The principal purpose (as I earlier explained) for referring to the Proclamation at the outset is that its language succinctly illustrates two defining characteristics of nationalism.

First, there is an appeal to history, and the claim that the assertion of statehood is a vindication of past struggles. It is always a task of nationalism to define the nation in relation to the foreigner both external and domestic. Who is, and who is not, of the Irish, the German, the Polish, Burmese or the true Magyar nation is not self evident. The appeal is to past struggles or achievements, whether cultural, political or military, in which "the people" are seen to distinguish themselves from the "foreign" overlord or from the stranger in their midst, and to stake their claim to an independent life. In Ireland, as everywhere, this involves a good deal of what Foster calls "retrospective idealisation." It is what Anderson calls the "imagining" of the nation.

Second, there is the assertion of a popular sovereignty. Even if a dynastic house seen to represent or champion the sovereignty of the nation, statehood is claimed in the name of the people. Romanian nationalists might consent to accept Carl von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen as their King, but it is clear that they regarded the Kingdom of Romania, not as a dynastic fief of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (in the way in which the sub-Carpathian lands were considered the dynastic territory of the Hapsburgs), but as the national state of the Romanian people.

The idea of popular sovereignty again is key, which is why, as discussed above, we are reluctant to describe a Bismark or say Patrick Sarsfield as a "nationalist."

Now you may still disagree with this. You may still have an conception of nationalism that identifies a Bismark or perhaps a Sarsfield (as in the existing article), not merely as nationalist icons (which is one thing), but as themselves "nationalists" (so that Bismark's Prussian government is a German "nationalist" regime, and Sarsfield's command--as romantically projected by Pearse--was "Ireland's standing army."

If you have such a conception, I am still not clear what it is but surely we are getting there? And isn't this what you wanted to hammer out? Why talk of "walking away"? The only reason I said I might not be able to meet you half way (if that was appropriate) is that I couldn't see where you stood on what the essential subject of this Wiki article should be. Again, while I am not clear how you would classify Bismark as a nationalist, surely we are getting closer to an understanding?

Maybe, on reflection, you think my position at least defensible and, if not perfect, an advance (and that is the immediate issue here) on the understanding that seems to inform the present article. If not, fine. Just take that final step articulate your understanding of what nationalism is, because it is from this that any discussion of what this article should embrace must follow.

RegardsManfredHugh (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are insisting that any discussion must be on your terms, and I am walking away. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this meta-discussion is going nowhere fast in terms of article improvement, I suggest any proposed changes to the article are made here complete with references. FDW777 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

On my terms? This is not on my terms. YOU initiated this discussion by making (as you are entitled to) an issue of my basic conception of the subject of this . First you implied that conception of Irish nationalism was too broad because I referred to the 1916 Proclamation as nationalist ("the clue is in the title" etc). Then you said that my understanding of nationalism itself was too "narrow", objecting to the inclusion of the concept of popular sovereignty. This, you noted, would not

include Bismark, who you consider a nationalist. All I have tried to do is find where you are coming from, so perhaps I can meet you half way. I tried to engage the reference to Bismark, which I thought interesting hoping this would clarify things. Unfortunately, your suggestion presentation Bismark as a nationalist doesn't itself explain what your understanding of nationalism is (and in finding mine inadequate clearly you must have some conception in mind). Unfortunately instead of engaging on the terms you yourself have set, you seem to be walking off in ill temper. That's is unfortunate.

As for this idea that any future edits should have to be pre-approved by FD777 or anyone else in this talk side room, away from the Page Watchers and Page viewers who wouldn't normally be alert to talk room chat, cannot be how Wikipedia is supposed. While of course talk can, and might be, helpful, proposed edits should be open to public view and challenge.

Best wishesManfredHugh (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As for this idea that any future edits should have to be pre-approved by FD777 or anyone else in this talk side room, away from the Page Watchers and Page viewers who wouldn't normally be alert to talk room chat, cannot be how Wikipedia is supposed. You are quite right, that isn't how things are supposed to work. However, you've demonstrated time and again that your editing is not compatible with encyclopedia writing, and persistently ignore criticism. FDW777 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I also refer to what @Canterbury Tail: said At this point I feel mass reversion of all the articles is more likely called for and insistence of conversations about changes before/as they are made. I just don't think this article is anything to do with Irish Nationalism any more and is now an essay/paper on the history of modern Ireland. I have tried to be tactful until now, in the hope the message would get through. Sadly, that has failed so I will be more direct. Your writing is mostly incomprehensible gobbledygook that persistently strays off topic, attempts to promote your own running themes, incorporates constant unnecessary micro-quotations and is of a completely inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. So bearing that in mind, I'm not willing to let you have free reign to edit this, or any other article unless you can demonstrate that you are capable of writing acceptable prose. FDW777 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have not ignored criticism. I have been told that the conception of nationalism in my revisions is either too broad or too narrow. All I tried to do is solicit from Scolaire what he/she thinks is a reasonable definition. The one suggestion offered is that whatever it is, it should be able to include Bismark as a "nationalist." I explained why historians (including authors of his Wiki entry) don't characterise Bismark as such. But then Scolaire just walks off.

You are laying a similar charge, but again with no explanation. I am straying "off the subject". Okay what is your definition of the subject and where do I stray from it?

You make very sweeping generalisations about my writing style (which, of course, you are perfectly entitled to criticise), but "Incomprehensible gobbledygook" is that your idea of appropriate language?

You say are trying to get a "message through." I certainly get the message that you don't like what I have written. Okay--but instead of simply saying I'm off subject, explain yourself. Define the subject so we can understand where we are off base.

No one has "free reign"--but no one individual has the right to set themselves up as an exclusive gatekeeper and force would be contributors into a side room and insist on compliance with their, in this case, undeclared principles of what it is, or is not, appropriate, before other watchers and other reader have an opportunity to pass their judgement.

Respectively yoursManfredHugh (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I will not get drawn into pointless, tangential meta-discussions about what is nationalism that ignore the problems with your editing. There has been repeated, specific criticism of your editing. It is up to you to make proposed changes to the article that take into account those criticisms. FDW777 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A discussion of what the subject of this article should be is "pointless" and "TANGENTIAL"? You said again just now that I "stray off the subject" but you refuse to explain what you mean by that? It's beneath you to explain by what definition/conception of nationalism you find my material irrelevant. I am left to guess.

"Specific criticism" of my editing? How am I to respond to a charge of "incomprehensible gobbledygook" or even (without further explanation) that I make too many "unnecessary micro-quotes." I don't what is wrong with connecting the reader with sources. The only examples I have been given are phrases quoted from major historians (WH Lecky, the major Irish historian of the 19th century, and Peter Gray from the Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History). Maybe I do it too much, maybe that's an annoying stylistic error. But is that really what this about?

It is up to me "make [the] proposed changes." I am not to try explain or justify what I have written, or expect you to identify the principles or standards behind your "criticism"--some of which, including the "Present Day" section described as "laughable" (see post at the top of this discussion), IS NOT DIRECTED AT WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, but what I had not yet edited in the present article. No meeting of minds here. I am just supposed to write as dictated and make the "changes." And what changes exactly? There are hardly any specifics and in any case do these amount to a case for wholesale reversion. Why don't you simply revise the existing article, if you think that is the better starting point!

Is there someone out here who could help arbitrate this, or explain a way forward?ManfredHugh (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, apologies for typos above.

I see I will have to be even more direct. I cannot see a single sentence of anything you have written that is suitable for an encyclopedia. It is pretentious twaddle, from start to finish. As such, I will not even waste my time performing a point-by-point dissection of it. I will not be replying again unless there are proposals made for changes to the article. FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it gratifies you to laugh at the efforts of others (at the "laughable" contribution of however it is who wrote the current section "Present day") or to express you contempt for my partial efforts, you can walk from this with some satisfaction. But let it be noted that when asked to share your superior understanding of this subject or of how it should be treated encyclopaedicly you have simply become, as you put it, more "direct" which is to say more abusive--and behind that abuse you now turn your back. Perhaps the Wiki reader can anticipate you hazarding your own attempt at this article, and that, of course, will show us all how it ought to be done. Good luck.ManfredHugh (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ManfredHugh, perhaps if you consider that you are using words and phrasing that make the subject more, rather than less, obtuse for the reader, who is coming here for an explanation rather than going to a text book and reading the sources of your quotes directly, you may begin to understand why your style is unsuitable. You are not writing an essay for a history class, you are writing an entry in an encyclopedia aimed at everyone from the college professor to the person for whom English is a third language and not yet entirely mastered. This is the major obstacle. You have been told this multiple times in this talk page. The concept is that your style of writing is not fit for purpose. You are not writing a book on history, you are not writing an essay or a thesis. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which needs to be as accessible by everyone as possible. There is a manner of writing which is considered the standard. You may not like it, but as long as you don't submit to using it, you will find yourself facing this criticism in every article you touch. And that is before we get to opinion on the topics at hand. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Antiqueight thank you for this. One is often blind to one's own faults but, as I hope you can allow, it is a little hard to accept that I have not written "a single sentence" that "is suitable for an encyclopedia" (FDW777 above). My model was the Wikipedia article on German Nationalism which uses "micro quotes", as FDW777 calls them, in, it seems to me, much the same manner. But okay, I need to revisit the style guidelines. Best wishes.ManfredHugh (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In the text of the German nationalism article there are 48 quotation marks according to my browser, this total is purely for the article text and excludes any use of them in references. Many of them are relating to translations. In the rejected version of the article there are 260 quotation marks in the article text. This total would be considerably higher had the rewrite continued with the From home rule to independence section and beyond. The term micro-quotes is not what I call them, it is what Scolaire described them as at 18:15, 28 June 2020 and I used his terminology. Their use is wholly excessive, this has been agreed upon by everyone. FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ManfredHugh, I would advise that you look within Project Ireland for style rather than to German or otherwise. But mostly to stop writing in such a way that sentences are long and unwieldy, not to use quotes for unnecessary emphasis of style over substance and to keep the structure simple. This is neither academia nor a book. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 19:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Antiqueight Got that, too much in-sentence quotation. I will seek to check that in future. (I am not, by the way, looking to restore my edits).ManfredHugh (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scolaire: Alternative starting points would be the United Irishmen or Grattan's party, who were inspired by the French Revolution and the American Revolution, respectively, which are often viewed as the starting points of nationalism generally. Would the Irish Volunteers not actually be the starting point if we are considering the 18th century? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A problem, I think, with trying to own the Patriotism of the 18th Century Volunteers as "Irish nationalism" is that while they may have believed in the sovereignty of the "nation" it was a nation that excluded 80% of the Irish population. Some volunteer companies in the north (who were to contribute to the United Irishmen) favoured Catholic Emancipation but the majority were behind Flood in 1783 demanded extension of an exclusive Protestant franchise.

What's missing in the case of the United Irishmen is that, unlike what we come to know as "nationalism" in the 19th, there is not the huge focus on trying to define the nation in historical and cultural terms. In these terms, there really wasn't a tradition to be found for a union of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. The nation was more something they look forward to building, than in whose name they felt confident to act. It is perhaps for similar reasons that we don't describe the American patriots of 1776 as "American nationalists."ManfredHugh (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no prerequisite that nationalism must reflect the entire or even the majority of the population. It also does not need to encompass cultural or historical terms. The Irish Volunteers were a nationalistic movement. The definition of nationalist is a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. This is what the Volunteer movement agitated. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right, the "nation" is whatever nationalists define it to be and certainly doesn't have to include the majority of those living in the "national territory." Still, why is it that historians, for the most part, refer to the Volunteers as "patriots" rather than "nationalists". Is it just a matter of the difference between 18th and 19th century terminology? The analogy with the patriots of the American revolution is telling. While they may be American "national heroes", Washington, Franklin, Jefferson etc. are never referred as "American nationalists."

The term "American nationalist" has very different connotations, arising only in the 19th in the wake of "Know-Nothing" anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, movements. These shared with nationalism, as it was emerging in Europe, the pre-occupation with defining the "nation" not only against the foreigner without, but also the foreigner within (with determining who can, and who cannot be, a "true American").

Yes these were issues for 18th-century Irish and American Patriots. But they were not primary issues because the necessary distinctions were already defined in law. The Volunteer Patriot was a Protestant subject under a "Protestant Crown and Protestant Constitution" (from which, under the Penal Laws those who "chose" to remain Catholic excluded themselves). The Virginia or American Patriot didn't really need romantic explorations of a national history, culture or folklore to satisfy himself that his "nation" did not include black slave, American Indians or subjects of the French or Spanish Crown.

Nor did they need to elaborate a nationalist history or culture to lay claim to representative and accountable government. That was something which both Irish and American patriots believed was something already implicit in their status as free-born subjects of the British Crown ("English liberties", "no taxation without representation" etc).

This is why it may be problematic to project "nationalism" backwards onto the Volunteer movement (or onto the United Irishmen). The Volunteers are relevant, in part because of the role some nationalist historians gave them in the Irish national story, but also because they help distinguish what was truly new and nationalist in the movements that followed Catholic emancipation.

This I think is consistent with how Nationalism in understood in its Wikipedia article and how it is generally discussed by historians.ManfredHugh (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)