Talk:Ultranationalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Heading placeholder]

I don't think ultranationalism should link to the nationalism page, and instead should have a page of its own. Ultranationalism is very different from normal nationalism as it is far more extreme. At the very least the page 'nationalism' should have a specific section on ultranationalism before the phrase ultranationalism is linked to it. Helper201 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. Charles Essie (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of any good sources that explain ultranationalism (beyond a simple definition)? I've only had a quick check but I can't find anything that explains it in a detailed manner that could be relied upon as a citation. Helper201 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of any good sources that explain ultranationalism (beyond a simple definition)? I've only had a quick check but I can't find anything that explains it in a detailed manner that could be relied upon as a citation. Helper201 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Any ideology can exist in an extreme form, that doesn't warrant a specific article (ultraliberals, ultra communism etc.). There is nothing special about nationalism existing in extreme form. Besides the sources for this article are quite poor. Citing an author of an article out of context as if he was a household name doesn't work well.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cyprian P. Blamires, Ph.D., is a freelance scholar, editor, writer, and translator based in the United Kingdom". This guy doesn't exactly sound like a leading authority (no tenure apparently) and he is the only source (apart from a dictionary definition).--Batmacumba (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I have never heard of "ultraliberals" or "ultra communism". "Utlraliberal" sounds like a derogatory US specific term. Where a specific term exists I think it is important to use and explain it. The more specific and accurate an article is, the better. Whether an author is a household name or not makes no difference. The person is sourced because they are commenting on ultranationaism academically in a book specifically discussing fascism (a related topic). Helper201 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

An article doesn't automatically become more accurate by using a more specific term, if that term is too narrow or misleading. When it comes to nationalism there is a wide range of qualifiers that are more helpful than "ultra". Such as ethnonationalism, ethnopluralism etc. The main distinction is between civic and ethnic nationalism, not moderate and ultra/extreme.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A book by a freelance researcher must generally be given lower weight than one by a tenured academic as there is less quality control of his/her research.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If the term is correct for the article in question then I fail to see how being more specific does not in turn make the article more accurate. Yes, I can see how in some circumstances other definitions such as ethnonationalism and ethnopluralism may be more accurate. However I think ultranationalism can also be an accurate and perfectly good term to use that can be either just as appropriate or more appropriate for some articles. I don't see why this term cannot also exist along with those you mention. Helper201 (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Myth" of National Rebirth?

Why is the possibility of National Rebirth considered a "myth"?

Firstly, this seems like a highly contentious and emotive term, presumably designed to reflect the author's personal feelings on the matter, rather than any kind of objective view.

Secondly, since it is ( - presumably - ) impossible to give a "hard-and-fast" definition of what "National Rebirth" actually IS, it seems rather silly to describe so nebulous a concept with such a concrete term as "myth". Not to mention presumptuous.

I'm therefore going to change "myth" to "notion". Colonel Muriel Clean (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeff6045's edits

Jeff,

please respect WP policies, such as WP:BRD among WP:NPOV. Fidesz definetly not an ultranationalist party, even if there some exaggerated sources on this, however this not not an uniform view with consensus, to say nothing of contradicts the reality. I informed Wikiproject Hungary on this case.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Jeff,

as you are a newbie editor, maybe you don't know thouroughly or polices and process, hence your argumentation in the edit log does not hold. Please read WP:BRD. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Jeff,

I am calm, it seems you are not, with you last edit you engaged yourself in a deliberate edit-warring contrary to the many warnings. Still you are not understanding WP:BRD properly and our policies, hence it needs a consequence at this point.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here

Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This word does NOT exist

Hello, I suggest to delete this article because it is not included as a word in the dictionary.

I think this word has been invented in order to discredit nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.160.58 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, see [1][2][3], for example. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That are not official dictionaries, just a couple of urban dictionaries you can find in internet...

Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=ultranationalism Oxford Dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=ultranationalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.160.58 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever an "official dictionary" is supposed to be. 130.237.96.132 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, quite an idiotic words-play here. What exactly would be the difference between nationalist and "ultranationalist". Is any person, party or movement that isn't explicitly globalitarian "ultra-nationalist"? Personally I think the term may be discussed briefly under Nationalism, but that's about it. 105.8.5.84 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Add a list of parties to the Ultra-leftism page

This page has a list of political parties that supposedly fall under this category. It is subjective, because what is deemed ultra may not be that in other countries. On the Ultra-leftism page, there is no list of ultra-leftist parties, but they do exist. I mentioned this first on the Ultra-leftism talk page and was told to mention it here. So both or neither pages should have a parties list or there is a double standard. -Artanisen (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Chinese parties

There is not yet any Chinese ultra-nationalist parties in the list. The Chinese Communist Party is very nationalistic in its policies. This article of the Economist describes how the CCP stirs up ultra nationalism. -Artanisen (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we add Trump?

I'd like to preface this by saying that while ultranationalism is generally portrayed by the evildoers of world politics, it is still a set of beliefs unlinked to actions. You don't need to literally be Hitler to be ultranationalist; America was ultranationalist during WWII, the Cold War, and pretty much any time we've been at war (including now). It's hard NOT to be, honestly, and the beliefs - while touted by history's evildoers - are still just beliefs, and are neither good nor evil unless acted upon. As well, while ultranationalism resembles fascism, it is not fascism itself.

With that being said...

Whether you like him or not, Trump's political campaign was and is founded on very ultranationalist ideas. Xenophobia (a focus on Mexicans/Immigrants), a focus on past greatness that we've lost but can regain under him ("make America great again"), a cult of personality (do I even have to say it), and even though it barely went better than the raid on Area 51, he DID attempt to hold onto his position after being voted out and his followers DID attempt a coup.

However you look at it, MAGA is by definition ultranationalist, and I believe it can safely be listed under the set of "Ultranationalist Political Organizations". Bythepowerofscience (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm adding it with right now because I can't get myself to change it; it's too funny to see there. However, the actual source on this is https://www.peterlang.com/document/1111423. Bythepowerofscience (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The main article on Trumpism defines the political movement as an expression of right-wing populism (which is typically nativist in nature) and neo-nationalism (which is reactionary in nature). Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This list "Currently represented in national legislatures" has the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party. However, it is overall conservative, not ultra. Is it listed here, because it has a wing with such characteristics? Such broad generalizations means the Republican Party of the USA should also be added since it has an ultra-nationalist wing. Not doing so is a double standard. Trumpism should be added as well. The USA does not have proportional representation. So the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties means both sides have ultra wings. There's articles such as this about the GOP by the Washington Post. -Artanisen (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Finns Party from list of ultranationalist parties

Finns Party ethnonationalist members were kicked out years ago, out of it was born the Black and Blue movement (ultranationalist, ethnonationalist)

Finns party is at BEST a nationalist party, but more akin to a conservative party. 85.76.117.64 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Israeli ultranationalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israeli ultranationalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 19 § Israeli ultranationalism until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Pauline Hanson's One Nation from the list of ultranationalist Parties

Unless I am heavily biased (which honestly, I probably am, and I would like someone to point it out) Pauline Hanson's One Nation is either Populist, Nationalist or Conservative, probably a mix of the 3. She is not near an Ultranationalist nor the party and just has unpopular views at best. 119.18.1.236 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson's nationalism is ideologically indistinguishable from every other nationalists "make nation great again by blaming foreigners" rhetoric.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism.

Particularly notable expressions of https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-nationalism include the vote for Brexit in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the 2016 election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States. Several neo-nationalist politicians have come to power or run strongly during the 2010s, including Marine Le Pen in France, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein, 1929-10-26, https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf

"I am against any nationalism, even in the guise of mere patriotism." David Howden (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)