Talk:Nationalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Further reading section

Hi everyone. The list of references in the 'Further reading' section has become quite long, and only a few of the works listed there are what you might call 'key texts' on nationalism as such. I think that we should remove all of those sources which are simply relevant to the study of nationalism, and institute a convention of only including works that would be considered essential reading for a wide audience looking to learn more about nationalism itself. The rest can be listed in other articles that have a more specific focus. – User:01011000 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with 01011000. Indeed, I would go further: if a text is "essential reading," then it should be cited already in the article, and thus in the "References." I would vote for deleting the "further reading" section altogether. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed this section significantly. It is now divided into two sub-sections: 'General', which includes some key sources that I did not remove and should be incorporated into the text; and 'Reference works', which includes a short list of reference works, such as three encyclopedias of nationalism, that I think are good additions to this article but would not be suitable for incorporation into the text. – User:01011000 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Some of these references are (kinda sorta) in the text already. I started moving things around. More to be done here... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

'Types of nationalism' section

I have moved most of the content from the 'Types of nationalism' section, which was quite long, into its own article. – User:01011000 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

'Theoretical literature' section

I have moved the 'Theoretical literature' section to here (click 'show' in the box located below to see it). The information is useful from an editor's perspective, but it should be incorporated into the the text as prose and not just listed there (please note, however, that some of the summaries are inaccurate and should be double-checked before they are included). – User:01011000 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. 2nd ed. London: Verso. Anderson argues that nations are imagined political communities, and are imagined to be limited and sovereign. Their development is related to the decline of other types of imagined community, especially in the face of capitalist production of print media. Armstrong, John Alexander. 1982. Nations Before Nationalism. Armstrong traces the development of national identities from origins in antiquity and the medieval world. Breuilly, John. 1992. Nationalism and the State. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press. This approach focuses on the politics of nationalism, in particular on nationalism as a response to the imperatives of the modern state. It employs the mode of comparative history to study numerous cases of nationalism. Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell. This work links nationalism to the homogenising imperatives of industrial society and the reactions of minority cultures to those imperatives. Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Greenfeld argues that nationalism existed at an earlier age than previously thought: as early as the sixteenth century in the case of England. Steven Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality: Ancient and Modern (2002)dates the idea of the nation to the ancient Levant. Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hechter attributes nationalism in the "Celtic fringe" of Britain and Ireland to the reinforcing divisions of culture and the division of labour. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Ranger, Terence, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This collection of essays, especially Hobsbawm's introduction and chapter on turn-of-the-century Europe, argues that the nation is a prominent type of invented tradition. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1990. "Nations and Natonalism since 1780". Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Kedourie, Elie. 1960. Nationalism. London: Hutchinson. Kedourie focuses on the role of disaffected German intellectuals in developing the doctrine of nationalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century from Kant's idea of the autonomy of the will and Herder's belief in the primacy of linguistic communities in establishing modes of thought. Kedourie, Elie, ed. 1971. Nationalism in Asia and Africa. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Kedourie's introduction to this volume of nationalist texts extends his analysis in his earlier work to the efforts of intellectuals in colonial states. Hans Kohn The Idea of Nationalism; a Study of its Origins and Background, MacMillan, 1944. Kohn's pioneering work formulates the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism. Will Kymlicka, "Multicultural Citizenship," (Oxford, 1995). Argues that certain "collective rights" of minority cultures are consistent with liberal democratic principles. David Miller, "on Nationality," Oxford University Press, 1975, 1995, 1999. Millerargues that national identities are valid sources of personal identity, that individuals are justified in recognizing special obligations to co-nationals, and that nations have good grounds for desiring self-determination, but that nationalism cannot justify suppressing other sources of identity. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Law without Nations? Why constitutional government Requires Sovereign States," Princeton U. Press, 2005, Rabkin argues that nations are necessary for the protection of the human rights of individuals. Ernest Renan, his 1882 lecture Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? ("What is a Nation?")described nationalism as the desire of people who see themselves as a community that "avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore" (having done great things together and wishing to do more), he famously described commitment to the nation as a "daily plebiscite." Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith traces modern nations and nationalism to pre-modern ethnic sources, arguing for the existence of an "ethnic core" in modern nations. Yael Tamir, 1993, "Liberal Nationalism," Princeton University Press. Tamir makes a liberal political theory argument for nationalism based on the right of individuals to associate as nations.(JR. Lover 2008)

Outline of proposed revision

Hello everyone. I recently replaced the lead to this article as the first step in a complete revision that I am proposing with the following outline. Bolded titles indicate the main sections, and the others are potential sub-headings. Please keep in mind that I do not intend this to be an exhaustive list.

• Lead
• Overview
  • Ideology
  • Sentiment
  • Form of culture
  • Social movement
• Origins
  • Modernization
  • Popular sovereignty
  • Nations and nation-building
• Types of nationalism
• Conflict
  • War and other violent conflict
  • Sub-state nationalism and separatism
• Everyday nationalism
• Key issues
  • Immigration and social diversity
  • Gender
• Criticism

My suggestion is that we simply work our way down the list, starting with 'Overview' now that the lead has already been rewritten. If you are unsure of where to find research material for a given section, I can provide a number of suggestions. I look forward to your comments – User:01011000 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead is no good, please see WP:Lead Klichka (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lead should summarize the whole article!

The first paragraph should always summarize the whole article, this is an awful mess. The first part before the TOC was a long winded unreadable mess. Your first paragraph is the hook where you tell people the brief gist of it. This is how a lot of stuff goes and the ball was utterly dropped here. Klichka (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".[2]" WP:LEAD

You failed to identify what it is exactly. I still don't know what nationalism is or why its different from say communism or cosmopolitanism. Klichka (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First, please don't be sanctimonious, and review WP:CIVIL before making any further comments. Second, if you read the above posts carefully, you will see that in this case the lead is not intended to summarize the rest of the article, which I think should be rewritten (not least because it is almost wholly uncited, but most importantly because it is nearly all wrong). I am well aware that this is not the way things are usually done, but sometimes that's the way things have to be done. I've taken this approach because I don't have time to rewrite the whole article at the moment, but I wanted to provide a brief overview that could also serve as a template.

Regarding the content itself, I think that your complaints are unfounded. You claim here and on my talk page that I have not defined nationalism, and that I should be able to do so in one or two lines. I disagree, but you don't have to take my word for it – read any of the books that I have cited in the introduction (or any other scholarly book on nationalism, for that matter) and you will see that the definition of nationalism is in fact highly contested, and that the first line of this article reflects the wide range of connotations that the term can have: "The term nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation." The second and third paragraphs go into more detail, particularly on nationalism as an ideology, but a full exposition belongs in the body of the article. Accordingly, I hope that you will consider improving the body of the article if you know enough about the subject to do so. – User:01011000 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be split if there is enough content on each aspect of nationalism. You make an interesting arguement for splitting it up. I am not meaning to be sanctimonious, I'm just stating that I believed the article failed to match the goals of being concise and contingent. I personally think that the article should be set to an archive of some sort or there should be an old version link in this discussion and then it should be cut down signifigantly so it can be rewritten. In software engineering sometimes it becomes impossible to maintain old code (esp when it was written by someone else) and it needs to be destroyed and rewritten from scratch. This seems to be majorly a case here.

So I see two paths for revising this article: Out with the old and rebuild it with greater control so the article doesn't become an entire mess. Or it could be retrofit, retrofitting would keep the content mostly, but its going to be very hard to work with and it will look complete even when it isn't ready at any point and may encourage the bad parts to tag along. I'm not an expert on nationalism so this is not my choice here as to how to procede, but I personally think reducing it to a stub and rebuilding will be better since it will encourage the article to be built up properly and if you are willing to dedicate your time I suggest ripping it down if you have the people who are dedicated to rebuilding it. I'd help, but I know absolutely nothing about nationalism. (Is jingoism one definition of nationalism?) Klichka (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to create separate articles for each different connotation that nationalism can have. Variability is one of its essential characteristics, and each sense of the term is importantly interrelated. I agree that the body of the article should be completely rewritten but, as the author of the lead, I unsurprisingly think that it does a good job of introducing the subject (though, of course, it is not supposed to stand alone).

My long-term intention is to lead a complete rewrite of the article, but I don't have the time to do that right now and will not for several months. It wouldn't bother me if most of the body were removed, but my sense is that it's better to have something to replace it with than to take the article back to a stub. If nobody objects, however, I am willing to go through the article and remove everything that I don't think would remain in a well-informed rewrite.

As for jingoism, it is not synonymous with nationalism, but it is related: it is a term used to describe strong support for war in the name of nationalism or patriotism. – User:01011000 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Walescw.jpg

The image Image:Walescw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "often" in the lead

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but ... the lead states that nationalism commonly leads to war. To me, the problem is the word "commonly" - it leads one to believe that nationalists only want war, and impies that nationalists want war. I think that this is misleading, and should be removed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but the actual sentence says that ". . .nationalism is commonly associated with war. . .", not that nationalism commonly leads to war, and then the next paragraph says that nationalism is not inherently violent. – User:01011000 05:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unverified Claims

Please could have a reference for this subjective bit of content:

"Nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one race over others, but in practice, many nationalists support racial protectionism or racial supremacy. Such racism is typically based upon preference or superiority of the indigenous race of the nation, but not always."

It's the "...in practice, many..." part that is unsubstantiated; the "...typically..." bit also requires some kind of reference to support the assertion, rather than just tagging on a casual and vague disclaimer of "...,but not always" at the end.

I'm not debating the content so much as the quality aspect... it just comes across as amateurish and a bit adolescent.

The other issue is that there's an implicit assumption here that we all know and agree what "race" is. Frankly, I don't know what it is... it's such an anachronistic and ill-defined term that I don't see how using it in a paragraph like this can impart any useful or meaningful information. I don't know what: "racial protectionism"; "racism"; "indigenous race (of the nation)" means in this or any context. I suspect there is an American-English v British-English problem of definitions here, as I believe that in America terms like "ethnicity" have prescribed meanings; whereas, in Britain, "ethnicity" would definitely be a more precise and correct term to describe what I think is meant by the term "race" in this paragraph (or "superiority" for that matter!).

Like it says at the foot of this edit page: "Cite your sources"! [[212.159.117.182 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)MacDaddy]]

Nationalism and Far right

I was told that "Far right" means "Nationalism" rather than economical freedom. What is the connection/difference between articles/categories Nationalism and Far right? Now it's accidental (or based on prejudices).Xx236 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no necessary connection between nationalism and ring-wing politics, but it is common for right-wing politicians to take nationalist positions (against immigration, for example). Nationalism isn't the opposite of "economical freedom", though; you might be thinking of protectionism, which is often justified on nationalist grounds. – User:01011000 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories Far right parties and Nationalistic parties include similar parties. The distinction is accidental or based on prejudices. Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. If you're talking about Wikipedia's organizational categories, this isn't the place to do it; you should post on the talk page of the category (or categories) that you're concerned about. – User:01011000 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have and noone cares. But:

Category:Nationalist parties From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For more information, see Nationalism. Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism Not an Ideology

Nationalism is not an ideology. It lacks the substance of an ideology, namely the methods in which a society should organize itself. See Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.160.72 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Ultranationalism?

I seem to remember there being quite large and good article on Ultranationalism, but it seems to no longer exist on Wiki. What's happened? Ultranationalism is now just a redirect to Nationalism, this would be acceptable if it were merged with this article, but there isn't even any mention of ultranationalists on this page. The term seems to have completely disappeared. What's going on? --Hibernian (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupid!!!

"Catalan independentist mural in Republican district in Belfast" ???

--93.136.136.142 (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussions about how to improve the article. What point are you trying to make?Sjö (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity? Billig's "Banal Nationalism"

Is objectivity a goal in an encyclopedia? In "Banal Nationalism", Michael Billig argues that while nationalism may be in general decline, it is ubiquitously, though subtly (often under the radar of conscious recognition), reinforced (or "flagged") in such "banal" ways as the pervasive use of "we" or "us" in reference to Americans, displays of national flags or symbols, even through reference to individual nations. OK, but is Billig a reliable source for an objective definition of nationalism (on Wikipedia)? No. I doubt Billig would even argue this point.

While pointing to countless nuanced supports for nationalism, Billig also strongly advocates the removal of these buttresses and the construction of a new, idealized "global community" on the ruins of nation-states and their concomitant nationalism. Billig imagines a borderless, utopian world "moving from masculine patriarchal states towards an unbounded feminine future" (p. 176). While generally berating "the West" for clinging to anachronistic notions of national identity, Billig's sharpest scolding is saved for the United States; the nation of the United States.

Anyway, the main point is "Banal Nationalism" contains arguments regarding nationalism, including arguments for expanding the meaning of nationalism. The book is fine for thought-provoking supplementary reading on nationalism, but not for an unbiased definition of the term.

Djm7706 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Ultranationalism?

I seem to remember there being quite large and good article on Ultranationalism, but it seems to no longer exist on Wiki. What's happened? Ultranationalism is now just a redirect to Nationalism, this would be acceptable if it were merged with this article, but there isn't even any mention of ultranationalists on this page. The term seems to have completely disappeared. What's going on? --Hibernian (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I found that very strange too. But, I looked at all the variations of ultranatioalism (specifically, ultranationalism, ultra-nationalism, ultranationalist, and ultra-nationalist), and of those four, the only one that was ever an article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultra-nationalism&redirect=no Do you remember anything more specific about your "quite large and good article on Ultranationalism"? If so, it could be reinstated as its own article. All I'm finding so far are pure redirects and badly formed stubs on the article which eventually formed into redirects, which now redirect to a page which doesn't even mention ultranationalism. Kevin (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What reference is there to support Nationalism as a form of Collectivism? The definitions used in the articles for both these ideologies don't conform to the traditional definitions of these words. See the dictionary definitions below. -anonymous

collectivism - 2 dictionary results

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collectivism

collectivism –noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

col·lec·tiv·ism n. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

nationalism - 3 dictionary results

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism

nationalism –noun 1. national spirit or aspirations. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for national advancement or independence. 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

na·tion·al·ism n. 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

nationalism The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination. Note: Nationalism is opposed to colonialism and imperialism. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.1.38 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A nation is a collective. Nationalism asserts that the nation as a whole is most significant to its citizens. Nationalism is a form of collectivism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Families, rock bands, and football teams are collectives. That doesn't make them forms of collectivism. The traditional and accepted definition of collectivism focuses on control. Nationalism focuses on importance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.1.38 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Article looks terrible

As a casual reader just browsing this thing is a mess. Somebody took the time to try and describe whatever this is and then it got all marred up by these [vague] [citation needed] tags everywhere. I understand their importance, but really, how are people so lazy as to plaster those all over but not do anything to try and contribute anything else? Its hard to read this.75.73.13.212 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.127.85 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, somebody has removed all the tags. No help. It still looks like garbage. ...like a bunch of seventh-grade dittoheads were released on the topic. Wouldn't it be nice if this article were about nationalism!? As in
nationalism: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary or
nationalism: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. Or
nationalism: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
--68.127.91.226 (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

This article reeks of anti-nationalistic bias

Even though it is a hot topic for some, or Satan itself for others, I suggest we try to keep a neutral point of view, which is the thing wikipedia will wither and die without. That is all. 88.112.222.28 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits to the lede to balance it out a bit and got rid of the "cosmopolitanism is the opposite of nationalism" statement which can be true in some cases but not in others. Welsh and Scottish nationalists for example emphasis a European identity over a British one. The whole article needs a lot more work however. In particular the difference between reactionary and revolutionary uses of nationalism. --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ridiculous. All day long I have been reading insanely biased Wikipedia articles. This one actually lists "xenophobia" as an "idea" related to Nationalism. WUT? In what way is Nationalism related to a fear of foreign or unfamiliar things? In what way is Nationalism related to fear at all? It is an ideology, not a phobia. Ridiculous. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism in some contexts could be taken as a byword for racism. The antithesis of Nationalism however is arguably Imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.142.21 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Since "civic nationalism" is a very common manifestation of the ideology, I think it should receive more attention in the introduction of the article. Furthermore, the introduction suggests that nationalism and racism are often related, which is not true nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borja Moll XAL 2010 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

The use of a single definition of nationalism in the lede is inappropriate to a complex subject. The lede is meant to summarise the article as whole which (although poor) already contains other definitions or views. I give one example below which demonstrates this. Given that I have again amended the lede.

What then is this contingent, but in our age seemingly universal and normative, idea of the nation? Discussion of two very makeshift, temporary definitions will help to pinpoint this elusive concept.

"Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating. "Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artefacts of men's convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non- members. "Each of these provisional definitions, the cultural and the voluntaristic, has some merit. Each of them singles out an element which is of real importance in the understanding of nationalism. But neither is adequate. Definitions of culture, presupposed by the first definition, in the anthropological rather than the normative sense, are notoriously difficult and unsatisfactory. It is probably best to approach this problem by using this term without attempting too much in the way of formal definition, and looking at what culture does."

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983, pp. 6-7.

--Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good edit. However, I have restored and referenced the relationship of nationalism to collectivism. I also removed some of the repetitious, unsourced, or off topic material, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the extract from Gellner above is seeking to define nation as opposed to nationalism. Both concepts are contested. On the question of the latter, I have a couple of books (dating back to my university days) that offer some interesting insights. John Hutchinson & Anthony D. Smith's Oxford Reader on Nationalism has a chapter on 'definitions' that identifies three core themes - the autonomy, unity, and identity of a 'nation' - as commonly pursued by nationalists everywhere since Rousseau, Herder, Fichte, Korais and Mazzini. Perhaps we could explore that in the lead? --Pondle (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I added an external link to the source for "collectivism". It appears the term is not used in the book at all. It is most often used by libertarians and I wonder if it is necessary here. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think collectivism is an appropriate term here. As Hutchinson and Smith say, the doctrine of nationalism involves several key elements: a 'people' must be liberated from 'external' control, united within a single 'historic' territory and able to express an single shared public culture. This is all about collective identity, culture and self-determination. --Pondle (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is it means something very different in an American context. The better contrast is social atomism v communitarianism. As it is, the current paragraph looks like a libertarian (if not a randian) construct. --Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps collectivism could be confusing - I meant in the second, rather than the first sense.[1] I've replaced it with a reference to 'collective identity', which is cited. Not sure about the relevance of communitarianism though, that's a fairly recent political philosophy - nationalism predates it by a couple of centuries.--Pondle (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communitarian thinking goes back a lot further, but yes under that label its recent. Its the old ontological divide as to whether identity is mediated through a community or the community is an aggregation of individual interests etc. But yes I agree with the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the edit, and hope it settles the question. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is necessarily a connection between nationalism and collectivism. Just because something is collective that doesn't automatically make it collectivist. If it did then by that logic all political and economic theories (other than anarchism) could rightly be considered collectivist, in which case the term would be meaningless and useless.

For contrast:

collective

collectivism

Notice that while the definition for collectivism uses the word "collective" there's more to it than that. In other words, in order for the ideology to be correctly called collectivism it has to meet other criteria in addition to being collective. --Dekker451 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Left Wing nationalism"

I suggest deleting the subsection on "Left Wing nationalism" as it is unclear to me that there is any such thing. (The reference to Stalin's "Socialism in one country" doesn't do it for me - in fact it rather makes my point.) Irvine22 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it is not a recognized concept. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a real concept. Historically nationalism has been used by the left and the right, depending on the cicumstances and convinience—although today it is usually associated with the right. Nationalism as a modern ideology begins with the tricolour waving, Jacobin Revolt against God, King and the French people, which was certainly leftist. Since the 20th century "Left nationalism" is generally defined as corrosive, separatist, victim based and conspiratoral, working to undermine a larger entity, often directly in the pay of external forces (particularly Grand Orient or communist Internationals, such as the Basque/Catalan separatists in the Spanish Civil War or republicanism in Ireland, etc). - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that document that it is a known concept? The Jacobins btw were liberals not left-wing and international communism is internationalist not nationalist. So were the international brigades in the Spanish Civil War. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The radicalism of the Jacobins is certainly to the left (socialists agree). While the integral nationalism of say, Maurrass and Action Francaise would be to the right. Some examples of what I was describing, regarding communism and nationalism. (1) The Basque and Catalan separatists joined the communists and anarchists, during the Spanish Civil War. Left-wing terrorist organisation ETA, are nationalist and "Marxist-Leninist". (2) James Connolly a Marxist republican (a form of nationalism) conspired with the Second International, where his name appears alongside Trotsky, Lenin and Luxemburg. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than saying they are both nationalist and left-wing, how would you define left-wing nationalism and can you please provide a source that defines it. As far as I can see the concept is pure synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some distinctively left-wing nationalisms - National Bolshevism and National communism. Benedict Anderson wrote that "since WW2 every successful (Marxist) revolution has defined itself in national terms - the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and so forth". Eric Hobsbawm said that "Marxist movements and states have tended to become national not only in form but in substance, i.e. nationalist."--Pondle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a definition of left-wing nationalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's defined here and here so it is verifiable, although sadly I don't have access to either of these two texts! Isn't left-wing nationalism, in a simple descriptive sense, any nationalist ideology promoted by a socialist movement? --Pondle (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If a "socialist" movement promotes nationalism, can it truly be a socialist movement? Surely socialism is international in nature, stressing solidarity between working-class people regardless of nationality?Irvine22 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Several nationalist parties are socialist, or contain socialist wings. Internationalism is a characteristic of many socialist movements but it is not an essential feature, nor properly understood is it incompatible with some forms of nationalism. That said I don't see the need for this section, nationalism has different forms, but left-wing nationalism is not one of them. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are parties that would describe themselves as nationalist-socialist, but we don't have to take them at their own description. Irvine22 (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(Assuming good faith despite your history) don't confuse this with national-socialism which has a very specific meeting, but then I suspect you know that. What point are you making? --Snowded ^TALK 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that socialism and nationalism are inherently incompatible ideologies - a party may claim to be both, but will in fact either be one or the other. Irvine22 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine; if you admit that socialists wish to manifacture an artificial x vs. y division based on class (even though for instance, most socialists in the UK are part of the borgeouise themselves)... why then would it be so ideologically incompatible that they would wish to manifacture division in other areas? The mistake you have make is in presuming that socialism is "sweetness and light", or that being on the left makes somebody automatically one of "the good guys" against the intollerent big bad reactionaries of the right. For example, right-wing imperialists are not necessarily chauvanistic supremacists of lore, see Lusotropicalism of Salazar's Portugal. The history of politics has a lot of twists and turns. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because a central tenet of Marxism is that the proletariat of country A has more in common with the proletariat of country B than either has with the bourgeoisie or capital-owning class in their own countries. That seems to me to be entirely incompatible with nationalism. (And I make no presumption that being of the left makes one a "good guy." In fact I'm sure there are good guys on the left, on the right, and in the centre). Irvine22 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a common position of marxism but (i) marxism is a form of socialism, it does not encompass all socialist & (ii) internationalism which is common to socialist positions does not require the removal of all and any nation states. Large strands of nationalism are about creating smaller more culturally cohesive nations within wider economic structures (Wales and Scotland within the EU) for example. I realise that many from the US tend to lump everything to the left of Tony Blair as socialist/marxist but I am afraid that misses the point. --Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For "culturally cohesive" read "ethnically pure"? Irvine22 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Several areas with nationalist parties are ethnically diverse in nature. Some theories would link culture to ethnicity, but not in the sense that you use it above with the addition of "pure" which has overtones linked to groups such as the BNP and the Nazis. Some nationalist movements include the purity idea but its not a necessary nor a sufficient condition of nationalism overall. You are in danger of stereotyping based on a very limited set of cases. You did something similar above with the internationalist argument which confused marxism with "left wing" and that nationalism and internationalism are opposed. --Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point about the hopelessly vague nature of the tag "left wing" is well made. Which again raises the question of what precisely "left wing nationalism" may be, and whether the article should refer to something so ill-defined.However, contemporary socialism certainly is Marxist in derivation. I'm still not clear on what you mean by "culturally cohesive". You say it doesn't have ethnic connotations, but that just doesn't seem plausible to me, as you have stated it thus far. Can there really be a "culturally cohesive" nationalism that also celebrates diversity? Can you offer an example of such? Irvine22 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually modern communism is Marxist in derivation, not all socialism. The British New Labour Party for example was never Marxist. And Canadian nationalists see diversity as part of Canadian culture. Of course you can argue that New Labour is not really socialist and Canadian nationalists are not really nationalists. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) I would stick with the position that contemporary socialism is Marxist in derivation. And yes, I would argue that "New Labour" was not socialist: I'd say it was consumerist. (The British Labour Party, however, certainly has Marxist roots.) Outside of Quebec, I am not aware of a political movement around Canadian nationalism - and in Quebec nationalism is certainly a reactionary phenomenon. Irvine22 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Irvine there is a major distinction with ethnicity and race (checkout any 101 anthropology text book). If you look at the Nazi's for example they are talking about race, and purity of race. By adding "pure" to "ethnically" you mixed the concepts which is not uncommon so don't feel bad about it. Also you should checkout your history, Marx was one player in the socialist movement of the time which preceded him. Even if all socialism was dervied from Marx, then it would not follow that all socialist had to be internationalist, or for that matter that internationalism and nationalism are mutually exclusive when they are not in some types of nationalism. Overall however I think the section should go, on that we are agreed --Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if you trace back the history of any contemporary socialist movement, you won't have to go very far before you encounter Marx. There is a distinction between ethnicity and race, but not one that would preclude reference to "pure" ethnicity. (The Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are the same race - but it didn't stop them ethnically cleansing the hell out of each other did it? A case of what Freud would have called "the narcissim of minor difference". What a great insight into nationalism is contained in that phrase!)Irvine22 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Encountering Marx agreed, but that is not your original argument. People have killed each other over ethnic differences, national differences, racial differences, religious differences and many others over the years. Again, going back to 101 anthropology, minor differences are more likely to result in violent disagreement than major ones. There is nothing particular to nationalism in that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the encounter with Marx would be in the context of the influence of his ideas on said socialist movements. And yes, people have killed each other over ethnic differences, national differences, racial differences and religous differences - all of which are elements of nationalism, and none of which is very left wing. Irvine22 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) A parallel might be drawn with monarchism. Although monarchism is generally considered to be conservative or right-wing, and was historically opposed by socialists (e.g., Russia, Germany, Greece), some socialists support monarchy, especially in Scandinavian countries. But that does not mean there is a version of monarchism called "left-wing monarchism", or "left-wing republicanism" for that matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll go ahead and make the change. Irvine22 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion and did a little googling. Take a look at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the jury is still out on this one. I don't see a consensus to remove that section. The discussion has only been going for one day and several interesting points have been made on both sides of the question. There is an article on Left-wing nationalism, which refers to Quebec, European and Australian examples. I will restore the section for now until a consensus is reached. Sunray (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to National Bolshevism and generic National socialism being fundamentally left-wing nationalist movements; both of those syncretic currents are categorized as Third Positionist, implicitly neither left nor right, but due to their rampant nationalism, revolutionary, extremist militarist and mixed economy agendas they are often thrown into the same pot as fascism and, by extension, defined as "far-right" organizations. Left-wing nationalism is pretty moderate by comparison. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you say Sinn Fein was Third Positionist? Irvine22 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein champions social democracy and democratic socialism, two economic systems that pertain to a self-sufficient movement: socialism on the left. Therefore, they could be classified as a Third Way in relation to mainstream socialism, but they should not be confused with Third Positionist ideologies that advocate inherently revolutionary and radical changes in a state's economic system based on far-right goals. As for Sinn Fein's nationalism, I wouldn't call it left-wing nationalism in the first place. Nationalism is nationalism, no matter what economic program competitors on the left or right may advocate. They attack British elements in Ireland the same way Francoists attacked the invading International Brigades. So-called left-wing nationalists need to work their economic philosophy of socialism on the social level as well, and stop resorting to "right-wing" methods of intimidation and violence in order to truly be considered a divergent strand of nationalism. That's all just my opinion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your opinion is very well considered, especially the analogy you draw between Sinn Fein's brand of nationalism and Francoism. (De Valera and Franco shared more than Spanish heritage, conservative Catholicism and reactionary politics). Irvine22 (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on SF. The fully fledged Fenian societies have always had a strong reference to "Enlightenment" Grand Orientism and after James Connolly, Marxism. The United Irishmen, Fenian Brotherhood and Irish Republican Brotherhood were strongly tainted by the ideologies of the Jacobin and American revolutions, both built on anti-Catholic philosophies. Don't forget in the Spanish Civil War itself republicans invaded Spain to fight for the anti-clerical Marxists and anarchists, while the Blueshirts and O'Duffy joined the reconquista for traditional Spain and Franco. Also in more contemporary times, SF/PIRA were connected to ETA, a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organisation which is conspiring to destroy Spain. IMO it is not republicanism as such, but rather having to compromise with the sentiment of Catholic nationalism which historically had a "taming" conservative affect on the politics over there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Sinn Fein do not advocate Democracy. Political parties that advocate democracy do not generally have a paramilitary wing who commit terrorist acts to further their goals. Secondly intimidation and violence are not unique to the far right, in fact they are hallmarks of the far right and far left, and generally speaking any regime that is not held to account by the people in some form of democratic process, no matter how trivial.

On the larger concept of left wing Nationalism it is not only possible but likely, given the control of the economy necessary in leftist politics. For instance both China and USSR were left wing regimes, yet they did not unify as one all-inclusive socialist utopia. In fact much of the propaganda was nationalist-driven, with unique historical, cultural and even racial identities equally important as political ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.142.21 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) The Milners' concept of left-wing nationalism that they developed in their study of Quebec was that nationalists would turn to socialism in order to assist them in expelling foreign elites. Socialism of course includes cooperation with trade unions, nationalization and regulation of business and a broad appeal to the masses. Both Sein Fein and the Scottish Nationalist Party fit the description to some degree. Of course their primary objective is independence and they include members who are not left-wing. The problem is that the concept has not attracted wide acceptance. If you look at the items in the Google book search, other than the Milners' book none of them provide any definition of "left-wing nationalism" - they are merely referring to groups that are both nationalist and left-wing. From what I can see, none of them use the term more than once or twice. Furthermore, they are not consistent in what they consider "nationalist" or "left-wing". "Left-wing" includes a broad range of ideologies. Any party that is either Labor or social democratic is by definition left-wing. Notice too that "left-wing nationalism" returns 631 hits[2], while "left-wing monarchism" returns 6,538 hits.[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "left-wing nationalism" suggests that "left-wing" is a qualification of the definition of nationalism itself. The emergence of nationalism was an identification of the individual with a particular region/culture. The term has matured since it's historical roots, but the general idea remains the same. To speak of "left-wing nationalism" would suggest to me either: The ideology of an individual who identifies with their nation, and whose political views tend towards the liberal; or, a country or region built upon liberal values, whose people share a cultural identity. "left-wing nationalism" is not a form of nationalism, but a label that may be attributed to an individual or nation. "Nationalism" is a stand alone term, defining the idea behind a sociological development. While it may not be entirely incorrect to label a person, nation, or movement as "Left-wing nationalist", the qualitative term "left-wing" is entirely subjective, and does not refine the term "nationalist" in any way. Thus a sub-section to the definition is not required.

Hist Park (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputable definition

In the very beginning of the article it is stated that "Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state". Though I do recognize that it its Gellner's perspective - albeit extremely simplified - it shouldn't be let alone as a proper definition of nationalism. The social perspective of Anderson's imagined communities, posing nations as facts of conscience created by a feeling of self-recogniting to the nation - which is highly related to Deutsch's remarks on the role of social communication towards the "building blocks of nationality" - is quite widespred not to be mentioned alongside with others. I'll try to work on an alternative and post here on the debate page. Do you all agree on the need for improvement in this part of the article? --Andregoes (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit surprising that the article doesn't cite Anderson, after all he is one of the seminal authors in the field. That said, Anderson wrote that a nation is an "imagined political community... inherently limited and sovereign". We shouldn't confuse the distinct nation and nationalism articles. Maybe we should revise the intro as follows: nationalism involves the identification of a nation with a state. In fact, I might just be WP:BOLD and do it.--Pondle (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the definition needs to be improved, but the previous one was worse, it saw nationalism as putting the "nation" over everything else which is simply not the case. Ideally we should summarise the main body and different perspectives. The thing I like about Gellner's phrase is the use of ethnic, self-idenification/recognition are other useful ideas. --Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that in this case we should rely on reputable dictionaries' definition for the first few sentences in the lead. Not to disparage individuals scholars' definitions; but they apparently disagree. Maybe get opinions at WP:Reference desk? Novickas (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Posted the definition/lead question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: [4]. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As Oxford gives: nationalism "noun 1 patriotic feeling, often to an excessive degree. 2 advocacy of political independence for a particular country." This is not bad as there are two meanings - wanting independence and putting one't nation first. Of course one can also believe both but they are not necessarily linked. --Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Political Theory: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood defines nationalism as "the doctrine that each nation has the right to self-determination... the boundaries of the nation and those of the state should coincide". The same author's Key Concepts in Politics describes it as "the belief that the nation is the central principle of political organisation". The Penguin Dictionary of Politics says that nationalism is "the political belief that some group of people represents a natural community which should live under one political system... independent of others". The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography has "the political expression of nationhood or aspiring nationhood, which reflects the consciousness of belonging to a nation". Brewer's Politics defines the concept as "devotion to the cause of a nation and its independence".--Pondle (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my comments on the Reference Desk, I think that the article needs to start with a general definition. Another RefDesk editor agreed that the key to a general definition is to say that nationalism involves devotion to "a nation" without getting into what defines a nation. The problem, of course, is that there are different definitions of the word nation, each of which entails a different kind of nationalism. This article should discuss those differences, but not in the opening definition. The existing definition is completely unsatisfactory in my view, because it excludes nationalism in support of nations that aren't based on an ethnic identity, such as the United States or, say, Kenya. Many observers have identified what they see as nationalism in multiethnic nations, particularly in former colonies such as Kenya, India, or, indeed, the United States. It doesn't matter if some scholars argue that these are not nations in their chosen sense of the word, because many people do refer to multiethnic societies with a shared political identity as nations. As with a dictionary, our rationale in defining terms should be actual usage rather than one or another scholar's theoretical framing of a term. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Marco polo. Wikipedia should use words in ways that the average intelligent reader will understand, and only introduce specialized vocabulary when it is absolutely necessary. Most people use "nation" as a synonym for "country" and understand it to mean "something like the United States, England, and France". The view that a "nation" really means an ethnic identity is idiosyncratic, specialized, and liable to be misunderstood. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I llike some of the definitions Pondle produced, particularly the Penguin Dictionary of Politics. I put in the current definition originally to have something cited which did not equate nationalism with putting your nation first above all else. Ie the current version is better than what we had before, but not good enough. Overall the lede is meant to summarise the main body of text and maybe we need to get that right first. In effect there is a big difference between nationalism in the sense of say german nationalism in the 1930s and nationalism in the of movements for self-determination. Of course, success in the latter case can lead to the former but they are different. Incidentally Rick, England is not a country in the sense of the United States or France, I think you meant to say "United Kingdom", but then the assumption that England=United Kingdom or Holland=Netherlands (and many others) are one of the reasons for nationalist movements in those countries.--Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about popular perception, not what is technically correct. In popular perception, there will always be an England. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And there always should be, the more distinct the better! --Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a relation with a STATE. We should not equal a nation with a state. Will Kymlicka, for instance, states many cases of multinational states and group rights that can be posited in order to making viable such picture. I propose the following definition: "Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms" or "Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined as a nation". Andregoes (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ALL Nationalism a form of Fascism?

Could ALL Nationalism be considered a part of Faciscim or are the twoo different?AMMOI (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues are discussed in the Nationalism and Fascism articles. Please note talk pagea are for the discussion of the improvement of articles rather than for general discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism is a basis for fascism, along with right-wing populism. But saying all nationalists are fascists is nothing different than saying all Marxists are Stalinists. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fascism refers to the "strong man" theory of government. Fascists usually use nationalism as a tool, but their goal is personal power for a particular individual, who is often viewed as godlike. Nationalism, however, can be a populist movement, without a fascist leader. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow how ridiculous. Just as all mammals are vertabrates but not all vertabrates are mammals, fascism is nationalism but nationalism is not always fascism. It's that simple. Pretty much what Rick above me said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.152.65 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Territorial nationalism

Found a few articles who mention Territorial nationalism but who do not explain what it is; hence I created an article about it and believe it should also be explained what it is here. From research I understood it is a movement with was/is used in Zaire, the Middle East and the Philippines but I got the ideas that it is much more popular then just those countries. For instance I have the impression most political parties in Ukraine have incorporated (elements of) it in there slogans and party programs; also in the USA all Arabs with American citizenship are viewed as American right? That looks to me as a form of territorial nationalism; more research is needed of course. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering Therefore's question.

The Smith book is too complicated to give a single page number reference, so I've turned to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics for a quick example of authors who consider nationalism to have begun in the French Revolution. See the article French Revolution. To answer your question about which party was the ultra-nationalist party, it was the Jacobian party, whose Committee of Public Safety sent thousands to the guillotine for "crimes against the French people". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

A patriot may support his own country by celebrating its diversity, and its membership in a community of nations. The word "nationalist" is usually used for those who say their people and their country are better than any other people or any other country. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RESPONS: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.235.153 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Greetings there.

I added the academicly correct version of nationalism and a link to several definitions by dictionary.com. It seems to me we have a propaganda-war going by someone (you) who operate with their own definitons (based on wrongful social usage and misconseptions?) of nationalism.

I propose we add the acamedic terminology as a main part of the article, not speculation around the sociologic slang/usage of the word. And you are absolutely right nationalism is not the same as patriotism. ;)

A patriot can still be a nationalist and vice versa. You speak in black and white about a very grey subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.152.65 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in some cases you are right Rick, but not universally so. Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties for example have a central part of the their policy more active participation in the European Community, English Nationalism tends to be more isolationist - there are other examples in Spain as well. Its not a simple issue. --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Use the correct definition of nationalism

Nationalism is in short politics in favor of the nation.

And why is Rick Norwood deleting the definitions of the term? Does he think nationalism should be something else than what it really is?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism <<< this was deleted from external links, why?

Mainly because Rick Norwood operates with his own definitions that seems to be inspired by rebellious youth that (mis)use the term to define themself to express disassociation towards societal matters? It's not an objective article as for now and I think Rick might got a propaganda war going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.235.153 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

    About nationalism!? As in
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary or
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. Or
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
--68.127.91.226 (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

nationalism and language

I remember reading an old version of this article several years ago, and there was a poor tackling of the important issue of the historical relation between nationalism and Language. Now, the issue is not mentioned at all! Strange! Maysara (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Problematic definition

Given that many nationalist movements began, not as form of attachment to a state, but rather as a desire that a particular group ("nation") should have their own state, surely it would be better not to define nationalism as "a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The example which comes to my mind is the Katipunan revolutionary group in the Philippines, rebelling in the late 19th century against Spanish colonial sovereignty which had then been established there for centuries. This was clearly a nationalistic revolution, seeking to replace long-established colonial government by group-outsiders (Spanish foreigners) with sovereign national government by group-insiders (ethnic Filipinos). How about an initial sentence something like, "Nationalism involves a group of individuals who self-identify as a nation; often having, or seeking, status as a sovereign state." (I'm no great wordsmith -- that can surely be improved). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultranationalism

I've noticed that the section on ultranationalism portrays the movement in an extremely negative way and generally tries to equate it with fascism. This is completely inaccurate, utterly unencyclopedic and blatantly fallacious; in effect, this section tries to both tar ultranationalism with a broad brush AND portray it as a slippery slope to a repressive and genocidal Nazi dictatorship. For one thing, not all ultranationalist movements are inherently fascist: while the Nazis were one example of an ultranationalist movement, there's more to fascism than extreme nationalism; to be truly fascist, you also have to believe in an inherent racial (not merely cultural) superiority of your own ethnic group over all others, plus you also have to support an authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorship in your own nation, the forcible suppression of dissent, and direct government intervention in the economy (not necessarily socialism in the full sense of the word, but some form of Marxism or Keynesian economics). As for some groups that are ultranationalist but not fascist, the American nationalists are the most notable example: they believe in American exceptionalism and national greatness, often to the point of qualifying as ultranationalists, but they cannot be considered fascists because they completely reject the idea of dictatorship, and most of them (but not all) don't believe in racism. I know that you commies probably won't bother to change this section, and will revert anyone who does, but I had to say all this anyway so that other people may see this. I have also added an NPOV tag under the subsection header to warn other users about this matter. -- An American ultranationalist 146.74.94.65 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"I know that you commies probably won't bother to change this section,"

Why don't you change it then? If you feel it's not encyclopedic, then fix it so it is, instead of throwing epithets around and assuming bad faith from other editors. We're all in this together. 75.45.238.87 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I also see that this section uses Roger Griffin's definition of fascism as palingetic ultranationalism. However, the article on palingenesis simply defines it as the rebirth of a nation in its original form. Just think about this: if fascism is nothing more than "palingenetic ultranationalism", and "palingenetic" simply means "rebirth of a nation", then even Zionist movements such as Likud can be considered fascist, because they advocate the rebirth of a nation (Israel), and are nationalistic in their underpinnings! In other words, this is just another way of putting that tired old mantra "Zionism = fascism"! This has no place in any encyclopedic article, even on Wikipedia! -- An American ultranationalist 146.74.94.65 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm no expert on any of this, but looking at the lead section of the Zionism article and then reading the lead section of the Fascism article doesn't suggest to me that zionism == fascism.

How about putting a subheading saying "Fascism" over the second paragraph of the "Ultranationism" subsection, and adding one or more other example subsections (perhaps a subsection on zionism among them) -- each subsection containing content explaining how that example is ultranationalist (vs. "nationalist" without the "ultra") and contrasting the defining characteristics of that example with other examples.

Looking at this, I noticed that the article presents "Ultranationalism" as a subsection of "Varieties", and that one of the other subsections is "National purity". "National purity" doesn't strike me as a type of nationalism; "Ultranationalsm" seems sort of borderline as a variety of nationalism.

BTW, I'm not a commie. Some editors here may be, and that's not disallowed. We do try to be tolerant here of those holding POVs differing from our personal POVs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with dealing with terms like 'ultranationalism' and 'fascism' is that there is so much cultural, historical and emotional baggage attached to them. Like 'homophobia', 'antisemitism', 'Left, 'Right', 'Zionism', it is almost impossible to avoid subjectivism. 'Ultranationalism' literally means 'beyond nationalism'. But what does that actually mean? Does it mean a philosophy of putting the national interest before other considerations? If so, that is a pretty sound description of simple 'nationalism', the political philosophy of almost every sovereign entity recognised by the United Nations.Does it mean a philosophy orientated toward ethnic cleansing? If so, that is not necessarily fascism. In many parts of the British Empire ethnic cleansing was the policy of the colonial authority. But we do not call the government of the mpire fascist. As for the term 'facism', it has a pretty definite historical context. It describes a particular political movement that began in the 1920s and roughly ended when Spain embraced democracy in 1975. It might be better to avoid contentious terms altogether. Instead, we could describe the actions and philosophies of nation.Gazzster (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One part of the objective here in WP is to unravel all of that to some extent. Avoidance of contentious terms is something which is difficult to enforce in the Wikipedia editorial environment, even in a narrowly-focused article; it is probably not going to happen in this article. This is not a hot-button article for me but, since it popped up on my watchlist, I've chipped in some comments which I think might lead to improvement (e.g., questioning whether "ultranationism" is properly categorized as a variety of "nationalism"). Yourself and other editors more closely focused on this article than I can/will assign whatever weight might be deemed appropriate to my comments. I hope I've been more helpful here than I've been a distraction. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition is: All things to All people?

I guess anybody with an agenda or special need can make up a special definition in that context for Nationalism. However that does not mean it gets to be in Wikipedia. This article looks like garbage.

And whatever does this poofy sentence mean? - "In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity.[1] "

Wouldn't it be nice if this article was mostly about nationalism!? As in
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary or
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. Or
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Here is just one example of the wandering, undisciplined loss of focus:
"There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism." It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]"
He; Will Kymlicka, is a writer on multiculturalism...this tangent does NOT belong in the intro section, if anywhere in this article! And if there were a zillion definitions of "nation," that has zero bearing on how many definitions there are of "nationalist." FOCUS people. Unlike your mom or schoolteacher we are NOT grateful for your every wandering thought and written word.

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
--68.127.91.226 (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"Nationalist myths" vs. "National myth"

I found a lot of sources for the subject of "Nationalist myths" (sometimes referred to as "Nationalistic myths"). Those terms have many hits on Google Books Search (3.180 + 581):

• "nationalist myths" - 3.180
• "nationalistic myths" - 581

Based on such numerous sources I started to prepare a draft of an article (User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/Nationalistic myths). But then I realised there is an article National myth. That term also has big number of GBS hits (16.800):

• "national myths" - 16.800

I first thought that term "National myth" is same as terms "Nationalist myths" or "Nationalist myths". But now I am not so sure. I now think that "National myth" is something more connected with epics, legends... On the other hand terms "Nationalist myths" or "Nationalist myths" looks like they are more connected with politics, nationalism and ideology.

I think that I have now two alternatives:

1. If those terms are the same, then I would try to use draft I prepared to expand the article "National myth".
2. If not, then I will create new article about "Nationalist myths".

Can anybody help me with opinion if National myth is the same as Nationlist myth? Any help will be highly appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Contrasting Nationalism with Patriotism

Regarding this: "Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist.""

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Gellner and Breuilly are "comparing" nationalism with patriotism? Or "conflating" civic nationalism to Patriotism? The quote given focuses on a point of comparison, not on points of contrast. 71.7.224.10 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

Some additions have recently been made, particularly regarding German nationalism from an American perspective. Apparently there was no discussion, and no edit summary was provided. In some cases the additions were made immediately before references, giving the false impression that the statements were supported by the citations. The additions appear to me to be original research or personal opinion. The additions also seem somewhat out of place. Is there any justification for these additions? If no explanation is forthcoming, I will again revert these additions in line with WP:BRD. --Boson (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you refer to this addition I agree with your explanation and will revert it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

reference list

I can't get the reference list to show in the essay. I apologize to the wiki community, but can somebody get the end notes to show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexroad2 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Starting from the begining: Old greece and others ancient nations

Is important to talk about Socrates ("I am a citizen from the world") and others ancient philosophers, in the critics please, to start form the begining. Some religions are against nationalism based on biblia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.104.146 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)