Talk:Nationalism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Naming and content of the Ethnocentrism section

The final sentence of this section says

The term ethnocentrism is a more accurate and meaningful term.

Pages 4-5 of the cited supporting source are not previewable online, and I don't know what term that source would distinguish from the term ethnocentrism.

The section has a {{See also|Ethnic nationalism}} template.

It seems to me that it would be better to title the section Ethnic nationalism, to use a {{main|Ethnic nationalism}} template, and to base the content of this section on info from the lead section of that other article.

There is a hidden comment in the section saying that it is linked from the White supremacy article. I took a quick look at that article and did not find a wikilink from there to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

proto-nationalism

What about proto-nationalism?

- On the one hand we see this as historians looking at the past and assuming nationalist identities as a fact where they may not necessarily exist. - On the other hand, we can see this as the period where a group forms a separate identity and identity-realisation occurs. I.e. they start to see themselves as part of a homogenous group and this can lead later on to nationalist feelings

-- Example of this can be found in the Netherlands of the 14th to 19th century. We see the Northern provinces secede from the South based on religion (reformation occurs and the split matches the frontline (to where the Spanish managed to beat back the Lutherans and Calvinists. Thing is, at that point, the people consider themselves one nation, divided temporarily. This feeling of a "nationalist" unity occured as they took in the Reformation and started a conflict with the Catholic rulers (roughly 16th century). However, once they're split, the North swears to reunite their "nation". Half a century later however, they no longer consider the South as part of their nationalist mentality and will even try to screw them over economically in order to benefit. The Southern inhabitant at this point considers himself part of the Southern Netherlands nationalist identity, as well as the greater Dutch, Spanish (later Austrian and French) Identity as well as part of the Christian Nation. All of those fit the Nationalist theorems.

Technically (as more and more historians agree) this should be seen as a period of proto-nationalism. Where the group identity is still flexible enough to change, yet established enough for it's members to have a sense of being part of this group. - The Southern Netherlandic Farmer HAD a concept of being a member of the Southern Netherlands. Yet he also was part of a greater Spanish Habsburg state and an even greater Christian State. With these two greater units, he had little to do: Spain had been given the Netherlands as an inheritance gift. The South was therefore not a part of the Spanish nationalist mentality. Yet that farmer could combine his being Spanish with a separate Netherlandic mentality without too much issue.

I am therefore curious why there is not even a segment on Proto-Nationalism in this article (not even a link). Since we are becoming more and more convinced that this is a step in the process that historically led to Nationalism. This could even be extant today. We can see Nationalist mentality shift all over the world (In the EU, more and more the concept of being European, gains prominence over being French, German, ...). In the US, the opposite can be seen: More and more people who would, in the past identify themselves with being American, will now use State or City identities to describe themselves (A New Yorker is an American, but will identify himself more as being from NYC, and will even look down on americans from some other places. Whereas this a hundred years ago would not be the case to such a level). In Africa we can see nationalist identities shift as nations change. Whereas we used to have the Sudanese, suddenly it is becoming very important to them if they're Southern or Northern. --91.181.60.45 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Polish nationalism

I have suggested merging the Poland section into the Polish nationalism article - discussion at Talk:Polish nationalism. This section is the only nation-specific section in this article. It would be impractical to include summaries for all individual nations in this article so for consistency we should include none. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nationalisms without articles

I've noticed that there are a lot of nationalism articles that don't exist, but they should:

• Afghan nationalism
• Belarusian nationalism
• Bulgarian nationalism
• Chechen nationalism
• Cuban nationalism
• Czech nationalism
• Danish nationalism
• Dutch nationalism
• Finnish nationalism
• Georgian nationalism
• Khmer nationalism
• Kyrgyz nationalism
• Lao nationalism
• Latvian nationalism
• Lithuanian nationalism
• Mexican nationalism
• Mongolian nationalism
• Norwegian nationalism
• Pashtun nationalism
• Portuguese nationalism
• Slovak nationalism
• South African nationalism
• Swedish nationalism
• Thai nationalism
• Turkmen nationalism
• Uzbek nationalism
• Vietnamese nationalism

Charles Essie (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit, removing an item from the list above caught my eye. I was going to suggest adding Philippine nationalism to the list, but I see that it is not a WP:redlink — it's a redirect to the Filipino nationalism article, which may or may not amount the same thing (probably is in that case, but maybe not in all similar cases).

Also, there are quite a few nationalism articles not categorized into Category:Nationalism by country. A google search for allintitle:"nationalism" site:en.wikipedia.org got only 735 hits. That includes a lot of articles not tied to particular countries, but it seems like a manageable number of items to audit.

How about wikilinking all the list entries to make it clear which have articles and which do not? Alternatively, how about creating a List of Nationalisms article (maybe with a better title) which includes a By country section?. Working from and maintaining a list in a mainspace article would beat working from a list in an article talk page section. I might create such an article if no one else does that, but I'd like to see some discussion before I do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wagon piled up with corpses, is it really necessary?

I realise this can be the eventual result of ultra-nationalist behaviour, but is that photo really necessary? I'm sure there's a policy about it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The Reality is too ugly, eh? Ingroups and outgroups Hail "Ingroup", down with "Outgroup"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.60.35 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The concept of nationalism

Why does this article seem obsessed with identity rather than nationalism as a political formation? The idea of the nationstate and people like Bismarck in contrast to the old multinational formations of Europe at the time held together by nobles.

Even people exercising highly abstract and idealized forms of nationalism like Hitler made it very clear that his main gripe with the Habsburgs/aristocrats and the Austrian Empire was their impediment of a German nationstate.

All in all this article needs more historical context and concrete examples of what nationalism entailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.195.165 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationalism as a social construct

Re this edit and this revert, this doesn't look to me like an "either it is or it is not" situation. Rather, it looks like a situation where there are conflicting points of view (see e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.). It looks to me as if WP:DUE ought to be considered. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be back on this. Identical IP address again dropping in "social construct" with no comment. I reverted because I remember it as a point of contention, and I want to get it documented here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationalism in the novel

I have suggested on the on the Talk page of Novel [9] that a section from that article on 'Nationalism in the novel' might possibly be moved to this article. Would this be acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But see subsequent comment re deleting the section because it is original research. Rwood128 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

National socialism

The reference to "Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)" is not correct. National socialism is virtually indistinguishable from socialist nationalism. The Nazi Party was a far left party as much as a far right one, just as left wing national socialists are far right as well as far left.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Very Biased Opinions on this page.

The very definitions of nationalism and patriotism on this page are dubious at best.

To say that patriotism is merely social conditioning and supporting state actions is a joke.

In addition, there is an entire section for "critics corner" that calls in to question the very notion of what a nation is and makes no mention of the blood and sacrifice of treasure that was necessary to create a state of free people.

It is times like this where I question whether Wikipedia is really a resource or whether it is place for political agendas to be expressed by people with way too much time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:402:500:4DA:3D90:C880:3DB3:9E5D (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to be an index to publications elsewhere, not a resource itself. You should not rely on, or quote, text from Wikipedia itself, it is intended only as a guide to find the actual publications of interest. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvements May 2016

I'm going to be making some improvements to the page as there seem to be various sections that are either showing an unbalanced perspective or are unclear. If anyone wants to discuss / dispute my edits please discuss them here. Thermocycler (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

White nationalism

Why remove linking to White nationalism from here? This seems to be a variety of nationalism, as follows from the name. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a type of ethnic nationalism. We'd have to add Black nationalism, Zionism, and all other types of ethnonationalism to be consistent if WN is to be re-added. Zaostao (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Any sources to support such opinion? Page Ethnic nationalism does not even mention white nationalism. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Racial nationalism is a better general term for black/white nationalism, I agree with your change. Zaostao (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Since the elections of Duterte and Trump, the general rise of nationalism in Europe (including Russia) and the Brexit vote, would it be appropriate to add some sort of "recent developments" section? 156.26.239.36 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment, but would add that this article is in need of better organization altogether, especially the "History" section. Perhaps it can be mentioned at the end of that portion of the article.Crazymantis91 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I added a 21st century section in the history. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:289C:961D:FA97:DF51 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Improvements with information on Jewish nationalism

Dear Wikipedia community, I am proposing to add valuable information to this article by discussing nationalism from a Jewish perspective. Under the already existing chapter on the 19th century, I will add a new category titled Jewish nationalism. Here the ideas and background history which sparked the Zionist movement will be explained. I will give a brief description to key events in history which were used in defense for creation of a Jewish sovereign state in Palestine. Destruction of both temples, the Babylonian exiles, and centuries of living under foreign/oppressive rule will be visited. Effects of the French Revolution and liberal, secularist thinking on Jewish identity will also be dissected. I will focus more on the ramifications of these events on shaping of theology and eschatology, rather than the mere history. The main source I will be using is the first 2 chapters from David Engel's book, Zionism. Please leave me feedback if you have suggestions regarding what you'd specifically like to see in my new category. I am also open to your source recommendations if you have any.

Not needed--we already have a good discussion of Zionism and good coverage of Jewish history. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi EvanRichardson97, I think that this is a bit too specific for this page, as this covers a fairly general overview of nationalism and the page already mentions these topics. I think that it may be better to look at the article on Zionism and see what that article may need. You may even want to look at some of the specific forms of Zionism to see if any of those need improvement. (Pinging Chapmansh, the instructor.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• I actually think EvanRichardson97's idea is a good one. Germany, Italy, etc all have fairly specific sections, and Zionism arose at the same time and within the same context as those other European nationalist movements. I don't see why it shouldn't have its own section. The only difference is that it wasn't country-specific as those other countries (Germany, Italy, etc) were. Chapmansh (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1.129.110.180 (talk) Thank you. This section is needed because Jews within every host country disparage every nationalism except their own.

The point is that they do not approach the issue fairly and rationally. They are mere tribalists who attempt to obtain an advantage for themselves by deceiving everyone else. According to their secret service, they wage warfare through deception, that is, they explicitly tell everyone else that they cannot be believed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.180 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian Crisis and nationalism - Anti-Russian/Pro-Ukrainian bias

"In Russia, exploitation of nationalist sentiments allowed Vladimir Putin to consolidate power. This nationalist sentiment was used in Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and other actions in Ukraine."

This gives undue weight to the nationalism of Russian Ukrainians during Euromaidan and complete neglect of Ukrainian nationalism during the time of turmoil, as well as a biased connotation that separatism in Eastern Ukraine was not the will of the people there but a manipulation done by Putin. Nothing is said about the role of Ukrainian nationalism during the Ukrainian crisis - it was perhaps the sole major reason why people went on the streets of Kyiv at all, not to mention the role of Pravij Sektor and various other enthno-nationalist organizations during that time. In other words, this paragraph reflects a pro-Ukrainian bias and fits not within an objective, but in pro-Ukrainian discourse. Either this paragraph has to be removed or substantially expanded to give due weight to nationalism of both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatientCompote (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nazism paragraph under German nationalism

Someone provided a great paragraph about Nazism in the context of nationalism, however, they didn't take the time to provide their source(s). I marked it as needing citation, but I just want to indicate that this is a very valuable summary paragraph to ensure that this entry is consistent with the goals of an encyclopedic entry on nationalism. I left a message on the IPs talk page, however, I doubt they will see it and return. So, we should take the time to provide sources that verify this information and make any modifications where there are inconsistencies.

Perhaps we can turn to these pages for similar information and look through their sources or ask for cross-collaboration on their talk pages:

• Nazism
• Nazism#Nationalism_and_racialism
• Nazism and race
• Racial policy of Nazi Germany
• German_nationalism#Nazi_Germany,_1933–1945

🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 22:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

An IP ended up providing valuable citations and modifications to that section, so I encouraged them to create an account. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 19:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Flag

The lede image for this article seems to be a flag of the UK...we should probably find a more appropriate image... Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a subsection in the varieties section

The link right-wing nationalism currently redirects to the varieties section on this page, however there currently is no subsection on right-wing nationalism. I think its quite clear one should be formed. Therefore I'm leaving this here to notify anyone that wants to contribute to help creating this subsection. Helper201 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationalism

Regarding edit on nationalism page, that wrongly stated that annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation in 2014 was driven by Nationalism. "...More recently, nationalism was an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia..."

First of all, the annexation of territory of another country was an illegal act, as a result of occupation. So no controversy here, but obvious disregard of international law.

Secondly, Russian Federation is trying to resurrect Soviet Union, and there was nothing nationalistic about Soviet Union.

Thirdly, the only nationalism possible in Crimea would be nationalism of Crimean Tatars if they were trying to create national state. Annexation by Russian Federation is dictated by totally different drive - imperialism. Russian Federation itself, as a federation of Buryats, Bashkors, Komi, Sakha, Tuva, Dagestan,... and many others, that can only function by offering its subjects foremost imperialistic but not nationalistic ideas. And the occupation of Crimea is a clear result of such imperialistic tendencies in politics of Russian Federation.

Financial Times: Russia: Imperialism awakes.

The Guardian: Putin’s desire for a new Russian empire won’t stop with Ukraine.

Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières: Three forms of Russian imperialism: Empire in Russian History.

The Conversation: Russia’s imperial mindset dates back centuries – and it is here to stay.

Igorsova (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism - terminology

"...Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany..." should be changed to: ""...Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred, socialism, homophobia and xenophobia, was also a key factor in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity perpetrated by Nazi Germany..."

I strongly believe that highlighting only a certain part of NAZI ideology (such as nationalism) and thus hiding other important contributing factors of NAZI ideology (such as socialism, homophobia, xenophobia, supremacy,...), is misleading for readers, and presents them with a twisted image of complex ideological structure of this regime, and screens them from the real root, from which NAZI regime had grown. Theres no need to hide the fact that NAZI is National Socialism.

Igorsova (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

They had nothing to do with socialism, other than trying to usurp its name. The Nazi Party was a successor of the short-lived German Workers' Party (1919-1920), founded by former members of the German Fatherland Party. Their main ideology was a combination of German nationalism, Monarchism, Militarism, and Volksgemeinschaft (people's community). The latest ideology aspired to "breaking down elitism and uniting people across class divides to achieve a national purpose".

The rest of their ideologies derive directly from the Völkisch movement, a 19th-century nationalist movement. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender and nationalism

Newbie here! I noticed that gendered and muscular nationalism are listed as types of nationalism on this page and am considering building a new article dedicated solely to gender and nationalism. I'm interested in what the editors and watchers of this article might suggest? (Slothstuff (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC))

Good project! Look at Rai, Shirin M. Gender and the political economy of development: From nationalism to globalization. (2013); Oza, Rupal. The making of neoliberal India: Nationalism, gender, and the paradoxes of globalization. (2012); Riabov, Oleg, and Tatiana Riabova. "The remasculinization of Russia? Gender, nationalism, and the legitimation of power under Vladimir Putin." iProblems of Post-communism 61.2 (2014): 23-35; Banerjee, Sikata. Make me a man!: masculinity, Hinduism, and nationalism in India. (2012). Also from footnote 169: Gender ironies of nationalism: Sexing the nation by Mayer looks at Indonesia, Ireland, Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sri Lanka, Australia, the USA, Turkey, China etc Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century

The lead of the article currently states:

Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century

How then does one explains England where the concept of the nation existed in the 17th century?

See for example:

• Mark Stoyle, "English 'Nationalism', Celtic Particularism, and the English Civil War", Historical Journal,43/04 (2000).

He argues that Englisness was a major factor in the Civil Wars. That at the outbreak of English Civil War was accompanied by a fear of foreign invasion.

Gavin Robinson in Horses, People and Parliament in the English Civil War states that non-English people were often represented as barbarous and inhuman (page 72).

One only has to read the Putney Debates to see that English nationalism was alive and kicking. For example one soldier in the New Model Army made the point near the start of the debate:

"We were not a mere mercenary army hired to serve any arbitrary power of a state, but were called forth ... to the defence of our own and the people's just rights and liberties."

Thomas Rainsborough for the Levellers argued:

"Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under."

the Grandees view

"no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom". Giving among other categories foreigners

Neither side were debating if the nation of England was a political entity that existed whether or not there was a king, that was a given, and the republicans of the New Model Army went on to execute "Charles Stuart, that man of blood", set up the republican English Commonwealth and introduced a written constitution called the "Instrument of Government". What is the difference between nationalism that drove the English nation to create a republic in 1649 and say the American Declaration of Independence 1776 about 130 years later or the French Revolution 20 years later still?

It seems to me that the statement in the lead at the very least needs to be heavily qualified. -- PBS (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Should a 1 sentence definition of "nation" be included in the article on "nationalism"?

Should a 1 sentence definition of "nation" be included in the article on "nationalism"? Or should the reader be forced to read the "nation" article before she can get on with understanding this one? Links are helpful, but they should not be essential to the understanding of an article. "nation" and "nationalism" are inextricably linked. Danielx (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Has there been any prior discussion for this? Per WP:RFCBEFORE, you should probably just try making the edit (if you haven't), then discuss it if someone objects, and only go to an RFC if you can't reach consensus. Without that prior discussion it's hard to understand exactly what this RFC is proposing. That said, I don't think it's necessary to define the world 'nation', since its meaning is reasonably well-known. --Aquillion (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - (Summoned by bot) There should be an informal discussion before RfC. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I made an edit, but it was reverted. Danielx (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A person who doesn't know what nationalism is (a very common reason for reading the article) is unlikely to have a clear understanding of what a nation is. Danielx (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the vast majority of readers have sufficient knowledge of the English language to know what nation means. The link is there for the very few who don't. For that reason, I reverted you (twice) a fortnight ago and asked you to bring the matter to the talk page. If a reader has any confusion about the term then they are better reading the full article anyway rather than a single definition which could easily introduce a PoV. It is not normal on Wikipedia to initiate an RfC without first discussing the matter on the talk page. An RfC is for when there is no consensus here. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Many English speakers get the definition of "nation" conflated with "state". It's a very common mistake not helped by the constant usage of the word "multinational" to refer to an organization composed of multiple states. Critiquing Danielx for not following proper protocol is useless since the RfC has already begun and people (e.g. me) have come to comment on it. Sure he should've brought it up on the talk page first but thats not the point of this discussion. The RfC starter is right in my opinion. "Nation" should be clarified. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should include a very short definition so readers don't confuse "nation" with "state". I suggest something like "Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people)...". ~Asarlaí 22:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Hindutva nationalism advised

The topic of Hindutva as mentioned in the article is blatant joke, and it does not reflect the reality of present form of political stance in India, either come up with better source, or remove it. It is completely misleading people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagnique (talk • contribs) 09:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

An antiphasis at section History

First and second paragraph contradict each other. It seems that second paragraph discusses something different than nationalism. After all, we are informed at the first paragraph that nationalism appeared in the word stage during modernism, but next paragraph talks about nationalism in ancient times. Seems to me that second paragraph is not as well sourced as the first one since it lacks secondary sources discussing the nationalism explicitly. For example, ref 26, of current version, cites a tertiary source that discusses Persian Wars and not Nationalism. For such a strong statement, a better source is required. On the same paragraph, article states "During the classical period of Ancient Greece, many prominent intellectuals, such as Aristotle and Hippocrates, suggested the superiority of the Greek tribes.(ref:Hope, Laura Leigh Bevis (2007). Staging the Nation/confronting Nationalism: Theatre and Performance by Contemporary Irish and German Women. Davis, CA: University of California. p. 177. But as I can read from google preview, there is no mentioning of nationalism. Apparently, someone linked racism with nationalism, which is wrong. Next sentence is also problematic, ("Greek nationalism emerged again during the Palaiologos dynasty of the Byzantine empire from 1261 to 1453[28]" since source does not mention nationalism, but patriotism. Also, there is a slight problem regarding copyrights of sentence "Some prominent personalities at the time also proposed changing the Imperial title from "basileus and autocrat of the Romans" to "Emperor of the Hellenes" Last sentence is without citation.Cinadon36 14:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Read the definition of nationalism, first lines of the article.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps some rearrangement within the lead section is in order. How about relocating the initial sentence of the third paragraph ("There are various definitions of a 'nation',...") to make that the second sentence of a two-sentence lead paragraph (perhaps with some more info, per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH), and starting a new para at that point with some wording changes to clarify the focus of what has become the second para as nationalism as in national government(?? Or something similar ??) Something like:

Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes interest of a particular nation (as in a group of people) There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism.

With regard gaining and maintaining sovereignty and self-governance over a national homeland, nationalism holds that ...

[beginning the third para with "Ethnic nationalism defines ...", and beginning the fourth with "Throughout history, ..."

Just a thought -- improve or disregard as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of well-sourced text

User:Snowded erased a couple of sub-paragraphs on ancient and medieval nationalism [10] and warned me for "indefinite blocking" [11] . The reason is supposed to be "poor english" and "dubious" (sources). He reverted my edits in two (2) minutes, obviously without checking the sources, all of them academic. The article is clear: There are more than one schools of thought on nationalism, but it seems that this user doesn't like some of them. He is invited to check again my deleted text against the sources, and explain what exactly is dubious. As for the poor english, yes, I am far from perfect, but I did some corrections. I reminded him the rule "Don't criticise poor English", [WP:NNS].

The LEAD of the article is clear: There two or three schools on the history of nationalism. However, the section of "History", starts with the common modernist view, from the 18th century. Shouldn't we include the other views?

To help readers, here is the deleted text:

Antiquity

According to Doron Mendels, one can speak of ancient nationalism, but not in the sense the term has in modern times.Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997 chapter "Nationalism in the Hellenistic world ...", p. 13 David Goodblatt, professor or history at the University of San Diego[ https://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/goodblatt.html David Goodblatt David Goodblatt]</ref>, USA, believes that nationalism existed before modern times. He focuses on the national identity of ancient Jews, and believes that the Bible is the base of the Hebrew national identity.Carol Bakhos, review: Goodblatt, David M., Elements of ancient Jewish nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2007.</ref> Steven Weitzman, as well as D. Goodblatt, support that the Jewish nationalism was triggered by the fact that Jews were subjects of other nations during the hellenistic and roman period.[www.jstor.org/stable/40207028 Weitzman, Steven. “On the Political Relevance of Antiquity: A Response to David Goodblatt's Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism.” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2008, σ. 168, JSTOR]

In ancient Greece, Greek nationalism was first established as an ideology during the Greco-Persian wars, in which many Greek states from different Greek tribes and parts of Greece collectively fought against the Persian Empire in the 5th century BC.<Cite book|title=Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece|last=Wilson|first=Nigel|publisher=Routledge|year=2006|isbn=978-1-136-78799-7|location=New York|pages=555–556> <Greek nationalism emerged again during the Palaiologos dynasty of the Byzantine empire from 1261 to 1453> <Cite book|title=History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453|last=Vasiliev, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich|first=Vasiliev|publisher=University of Wisconsin Press|year=1952|isbn=978-0-299-80926-3|location=Madison, WI|pages=582|url=https://archive.org/details/historyofbyzanti0000vasi/page/582>, during which the state of the empire had favored patriotism by being geographically limited to areas with mostly Greek population, a process that had started long before, with Greek becoming the official language of the empire in 620 A.D by emperor Heraclius. Some prominent personalities at the time also proposed changing the Imperial title from "basileus and autocrat of the Romans" to "Emperor of the Hellenes". This Greek national consciousness remained prominent during the Ottoman occupation of Greece, which lasted for 4 to 5 centuries for different parts of the modern Greek state.

Middle Ages

Adrian Hastings, one of the ethnosymbolists or primordialists, believes that the origins of the nations is found the Middle Ages.Jonathan Viger, “ L’émergence et la reproduction des nations : un essai bibliographique critique sur la réflexion théorique et l’analyse historique dans l’étude du nationalism”, Politique et Societes, Vol. 35, No 1, 2016, pp 125-144, par. 2. In his work "The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism" (1997), he attacks the modernist theories of E. Hobsbawm, E. Gellner, J. Breuilly and B. Anderson. He considers England as the older example of an european nation, and believes that the development of nations is related with the Christian Church and the spread of the written national languages.Baycroft, T. (1999), Review of Adrian Hastings, The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 235 pp. Nations and Nationalism, 5(1), 127-52. Philip Schwyzer traces the origins of nationalism and national consciousness of some european nations in the 16th century. Philip Schwyzer (2016), p. 2, 3, passim

Caspar Hirschi supports that the german nationalism has its origins in the Roman imperialism, and appears in the 15th century.Mabry, T. J. (2013). Book Review: The Origins of Nationalism: An Alternative History From Ancient Rome to Early Modern Germany, by C. Hirschi. Comparative Political Studies, 46(6), 757–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013479101 Grosby, S., Leerssen, J., & Hirschi, C. (2014). Continuities and shifting paradigms: A debate on Caspar Hirschi's 'The origins of nationalism'. Studies on National Movements, 2 pp. 2-13: Steven Grosby, Nationality and constructivism. pp. 13-23: Joep Leerssen, The baton and the frame: or, tradition and recollection (criticism pm Hirschi). pp. 24-35: Caspar Hirschi, "Duck or quack? On the lack of scholarly soundness and decorum in Joep Leerssen’s review (criticism on Leerssen), pp. 35-48: Joep Leerssen, Response to Caspar Hirschi.]

(I haven't checked yet the sources on ancient Greek, but I just recovered a previously existing paragraph. It was deleted by a user known in the greek WP fore recently deleting MOST of the article on Nationalism and ALMOST ALL the sources! He is trying to re-write the whole article on the modernist POV.)--Skylax30 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

It reads like an essay on the subject rather than an encylopedia entry - is there a third party source making the same connections? -----Snowded ^TALK 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources are clearly talking about nationalism in relation to ancient or medieval people. However, if the surpassed modernists want to put up resistance, I wouldn't care less. Have a nice day.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. Before that, I have to inform Snowded that Skylax30 asked at the talk page of Nationalism (Εθνικισμός) in Greek WP, whether you are linked to anyone in gr.WP. [12]. Skylax30 has been active in greek WP trying to push the same line of arguments, his edits have also been reverted due to many reasons (violation of copyright policy among others). Anyway, the reason I agree with Snowded is that academic sources cherry picked by Skylax30 to support his POV, are rather dubious and therefor wont reflect the mainstream opinion that Nationalism is a rather recent political movement. Good job Snowded in reverting POV-pushing. Cinadon36 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"See Also" section

With regard to the latest edit war at "See also" section, I restored the stable version of the article[13], and expect @Skylax30: to explain why he is constantly pushing his POV. Creating a WP:Fork article and creating an internal link to the main article is not constructive; Wikipedia won't benefit from this process. Cinadon36 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more clear, what exactly is the "Point Of View" that is not supposed to be in the article? Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

nationalism/patriotism

The article is not entirely reliable because it assumes that patriotism and nationalism can be separated from each other. But the transitions are very fluid. How do you locate the "nationalism" of the Austrian monarchy or that of the Irish? Nationalism does presuppose "real" identity. There was for instance a Prussian national consciousness that happened to have Protestant connotations. A similar phenomenon can also be observed in the USA. Kennedy was the only Catholic president, Obama the only black. Coincidence? So please revise the article.--2003:CB:2F24:FC63:3D10:1F46:86EC:7C75 (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Viktor Orbán, Jarosław Kaczyński, Mateusz Morawiecki.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Very good lead...

Hi everyone, I am new to the article and I am very happy about the very good lead. Nice work everyone!!!

Because I find it very good I didnt want to fuzz with it and put here my little thoughts:

• maybe there is a spot in the lead where there can be a mention of the nation state or even better that nationalism often seeks to establish a state that follows the ideals of the particular nationalism. I mean it is kind of there with the mention of different nationalisms and mention of self governance, but that doesnt need to imply the creation of a state as an aim.

• maybe a bit more intercontinential examples of nationalist revolutions in the last para, not just europe/mediterrane. But maybe I am starting a firework of edits, which I dont think is necessary, its basically fine, since it gives good geopolitical examples.

Anyways, its very good work! Cheers for everyone! Nsae Comp (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Colonial Nationalism

I expanded this to add structure and clarity to the section, both theoretically and historically. I added information about anti-colonial movements, and expanded the focus beyond post-Soviet Europe to include Africa and Asia in the mid-late 20th century. I added in a discussion about Anderson and Gellner, as well as post-colonial theorists and historical details.

There is current significance to this topic, and it would be helpful to include information about Morocco (Western Sahara), Israel (Palestinian territories), Turkey (Kurdish independence) and recent wars in post-Soviet countries. Please feel free to continue to continue this project with recent examples that exemplify this theoreticla framework.Rachelismo (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelismo (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Primordialism vs. perennialism

Anthony D. Smith seems to differentiate between primordialism and perennialism, although I did not get exactly what is the difference. It seems like this article consider them to be the same. Does anyone have any opinion on this? Should the article differentiate between the concepts and if so, what is the difference? Oddeivind (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oddeivind: Perennialism = "the label applied by Anthony Smith to those theories of national identity that see it as neither exclusively modern [modernist theories] nor continuous with pre-historical forms of identity [primordialist theories]". (From Dickovick, J. Tyler; Eastwood, Jonathan (2016). Comparative politics: integrating theories, methods, and cases (Second ed.). New York. ISBN 978-0-19-027099-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)) Jr8825 • Talk 17:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Popular sovereignty

I've been scratching my head over this. Is popular sovereignty a suitable wikilink (in parenthesis) for the statement "[nationalism holds] that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty)"? I've removed it because of my reservations about it, but want to explain my rationale further here in case others disagree. Popular sovereignty isn't inherently about a "nation" of people – social contract theory is an enlightenment idea and its main thinkers (Hobbes, Locke etc.) predate nationalism. There's definitely an overlap – Hobbes' Leviathan is a metaphor for a "Commonwealth" (state-community) built out of a artificial (constructed) body of people – but the statement "the nation is the only rightful source of political power" doesn't equate to saying "the consent of the people is the only rightful source of political power". I initially replaced the link to popular sovereignty with a link to national sovereignty (piped to Westphalian sovereignty), which is more closely related to nationalism, but I removed it again as it doesn't really fit this particular sentence – the article discusses the Westphalian system from an IR realist perspective, so it's talking about "states", rather than "nations of people". Any thoughts welcome, Jr8825 • Talk 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EvanRichardson97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

General study

Discuss the contribution of multinational corporations on host countries 41.186.78.203 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

General study

Discuss the impacts of neo colonialism and geo politics on host countries 41.186.78.203 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)