Talk:Nationalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

National Socialism

Should the link to 'National Socialism dot com' http://www.national-socialism.com/ under external links have a note beside it warning that it's contents could be viewed as 'offensive' by some readers? While the site isn't outright 'racist' (it's Philosophy page states quite the contrary) it does have a 'White supremacy' theme to it and a few posts that could be interpreted as Anti-Semitic in nature. The site does embody the ideology of some National Socialist movements, however I believe it should be made clear that the link points to a site that only pertains to one idealogical perspective and isn't inherently educational in nature. I believe the link should remain in the article as it does show some of the negative consequences associated with 'national pride', however some might find the site offensive and it should be marked as so, and perhaps demoted from it's position as a primary link. -Jaqel 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian nationalism as of 2006

Australian nationalism as of 2006 [1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

not neccesarily true

"Italy's unification, however, is a good example of a 19th-century nationalist movement based upon ethnicity and/or language." I dont think it is historically accurate to describe italy's unification as based upon such ideas, as of unification italy did not speak a common language, albeit related languages which were later termed dialects with the supremacy of Tuscan/Florentine as the national standard. Eus2

black panther party

"Some of these movements are left-wing, others are centrist, while others are far right and racist, such as the Black Panther Party." is it being said that the Black Panther Party is "far right and racist"

Nationalist movements in Pakistan

There are some nationalist movements in Pakistan which are known as Jeeay Sindh .Balochistan nationalist movement and Siraiki movement .Siraiki national movement demands independent province in Pakistan

Historical effects of nationalism (Britain and Ireland)

"The Acts of Union and English expansion and attempts at conquest of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were a result of English nationalism. All of the Scottish, Irish and Welsh wars and rebellions against English rule were an expression of Irish Nationalism, Scottish Nationalism and Welsh Nationalism"

I'm not happy with this statement. It's POV, it's historically dubious and it conflates many different events. The Scottish wars of independence took place at a time when England was ruled by a French-speaking nobility - was English nationalism really the dominant factor there? As for the other conflicts - what about other factors (especially religion)? --Nydas 22:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the section. One could argue that the Declaration of Arbroath was an example of nationalism at work, but I felt that it would look desperately out of place, being 'four centuries' earlier than the next example.--Nydas 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism and Nationalism

Isn't it safe to say, the role of "race" in racism, is equivalent to the role of "nation" in nationalism?

yes and no. Racism is used to describe negative discrimination based on race. A nationalism while often includes the views that one's own nation is superior or demands one's service over other nations, it is not always about discrimination. For example, a racist doesn't hire a person they view as a lower race, because they believe that person won't be a good worker. A nationalist might discriminate, but not always. If a nationalist did, it would be more like hiring a fellow national, as a favor to them. this has to do with the idea of an imagined community. Rds865 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism and Patriotism

Opening a can of worms here...

This article and the patriotism article cover similar ground, but the link between them is weak. I'd suggest a seperate article examining the differences (if any) between patriotism and nationalism, which they both link to.--Nydas 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hard to tell them apart, isn't it? For most purposes, they are interchangeable. Patiotism has been used more for emotional identification and Nationalism has been used more for ideological, indeed, extreme idealogical connotations, like "National Socialism" (Nazi). Patriotism is also only associated with loyalty or love for to a country, since it refers to the idea of being loyal to the land where one was born, whilst Nationalism can refer to a Nation beyond the borders of a land. Still, to me they are so close that one wonders if not an article named "Patriotism and Nationalism" wherein one points out the differences and then goes on to describe all that is in common, might be a good idea? I certainly can think of a lot of the material here that should be copied onto both articles otherwise. DanielDemaret 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what happens when you demonize words and propagandize, throwing honesty out the window. You just confuse people. Not you personally, the word "Nationalism" is demonized.98.165.6.225 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture, but ...

..."Lady Liberty" had much more to do with individual liberty than nationalism. Anyone have a better one? Meanwhile there must be a spot for this one in "French Revolution."Sfahey 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I selected this picture. It's already used elsewhere, including the French Revolution section. I think it's appropriate for a number of reasons. It depicts a national flag and a national struggle. It shows all the economic classes of France working together - the very essence of nationalism is that it transcends class boundaries. For academics, the French Revolution is a common starting point for nationalism (although earlier examples may exist). Individual liberty and nationalism are not always distinct from each other, particularly for France - see Marianne. The fact that she's called Liberty in the painting can't be that important, can it?--Nydas 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong revolution, even! This did not commemorate the French Revolution that Sfahey is thinking of. It's an excellent icon of nationalism, as Nydas points out --Wetman 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you are so right. But that leads to another can of worms, re French Revolution, which I choose not to open.Sfahey 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lady Liberty"? Is that the american name for la Marianne ? DanielDemaret 12:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the first nationalists?

I was watching a tv documentary on islam's muhammad and it was said that at one point he forced the different clans of "Medina"(or sth) to co-operate with the Constitution of Medina. could that be considered an example of early nationalism?

Language section - biased?

I think that the sentence "Some politicians, such as Pat Buchanan have consciously opposed the rise of Spanish as a second American language, for fear that it would undermine unity in the American national character." - seems biased.

Selecting Pat Buchanan, who's a bit of an extremist, to represent MANY politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who believe that a national language should be established, sends the message that the idea is extreme like he is.

--- But I think it *is* a rather extreme idea ... Spanish is already a de facto second American language Agger (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Ithink we should focus on adding more pictures as this is a area seriously lacking in this page. I was going to nominate this for Featured article but I do not believe the quality or amounts of pictures are justifiable. Felixboy 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, although it'll be a challenge finding a large number of uncontroversial pictures.--Nydas 17:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image at "Nationalism and extremism"

The image displayed near the section "Nationalism and extremism" has a comment "Killing of 5,000 Jews in Kaunas by Lithuanian nationalists in June 1941". The comment itself is not cited and is of very dubious nature. The events that it refers to were spontaneous, took place in some industrial garages and could have entailed about 50 Jewish victims, but 5000 is a very inaccurate and unfounded number.

It is misleading to attribute that image to Lithuanian nationalists - see Discussion for the image. 15.207.255.7 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias towards Flemish separatism

In the section Nationalism#Types_of_nationalism, subsection State nationalism, the author links 'Flemish separatists' to the article about the political party Vlaams Belang. Though this party certainly has Flemish independence as a major goal, not all Flemish separatists belong or support this party. Based on the controversy caused by this party (on grounds of racist policies) the author clearly tries to discredit all separatists by automatically linking them to Vlaams Belang. I therefore move that this link be changed. I see two possibilities as new links: either separate the link and link Flemish to Flanders and 'Separatists' to Separatism, or link to Flemish movement. The last solution would have as an advantage that immediately links to a more specific article, though because there is a possibility that the article might be merged in future, it might be better to use the first solution for the time being, until the possible merger is resolved. Any thoughts on which would be best? Or perhaps someone has another possible solution?

It would in that case be merged with Flemish independence - we could link to that. I do, however, think it should link to Flemish movement until that merge is finished - after all, we do not know what lies in the future! Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed the link to Flemish movement Lord Flashheart 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Basque separatists

Linking basque separatism to ETA is quite a bold move. According to democratic states and Wikipedia itself, ETA is a TERRORIST group, although their aims are separatist they can not be representative of the basque separatist movement. I have replaced the link with Basque nationalism, which is a democratic movement quite representative of the feelings of many people.

I have not seen any singe word or reference to the Basque Country, in the entry "nationalism".

It's the only place in the western world that I know of where all political representatives (including the smallest town) who are NOT nationalists have to live (present-day) with bodyguard protection (almost 50% of the Basque Parliament), as well as members of the judicature and businessmen or outspoken non-nationalistic members of liberal professions, such as journalists, do. Journalists or Intelectuals who were non believers, are now mostly in exile, thogh.

This is quite odd for me and possibly for all the other 200.000 persons who have left the Basque Country (in the Spanish side which suffers nationalistic beleifs; in the french side, despite NOT having their own Parliament, Police, TV's, Administration, control of 95% of public spending, control of education, etc. the believers in the nationalistic faith are very few, irrelevant for practical purposes) between the 80's and the 90's. Not much for you, but more than 1/10th of the population.

Granted "nationalism" is not equal to ETA, altough it breeds ETA. And it's police failed to prosecute it properly. Basque Police has been always late or non-present. Paintings by terrorist or their supporters are never touched or cleaned. The police or the public administration do not do it. Remind you of the beginning of the 3rd Reich? Am I exaggerating? Well, go ahead travel there with a spanish flag pin on just with a combination of red and yellow and do tell me what happened.

If you go to live to the Basque Country you'll never ask yourself the question, why a country like germany felt prey to nationalistic socialism (National- Sozialismus).

It's wonderful if you happen to have nationalistic beliefs in the spanish Basque Country. Then you do not have to worry about expressing your opinions in public; life and work are much easier. You can even repeat, hear or read the word "basque", or "we, the basques" hundreds of time a day and never feel tired.

Portugal as the first European modern nation-state

May someone confirm if Portugal is the first European "modern" nation-state, by the ends of XIII century? Or at least as we may consider a "nation": with a defined territory, people, language, and a centralized government? And, if so, isn´t it worth to be cited in the article? Thanks. Tonyjeff 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The lists at the end

Historical effects of nationalism, nationalist movements, see also - do they actually add anything to the article? They could potentially grow to hundreds of entries each.--Nydas 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Is the Delacroix painting the most appropriate to illustrate nationalism? I thought its message was liberalism. The flag in the image is not meant to represent France, but rather anti-monarchist, popular rule. --dm ^(talk) 21:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above.--Nydas 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Long list removed

I replaced the potentially very long list of nationalist movements, with references to other lists, and to articles which have categories attached. There is a lot of overlap in these lists, and together they include almost everything that was on the list here. They also categorise the organisations better. Long lists don't belong in article text, certainly not in this article which is so complex already.--Paul111 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Delacroix image

To improve the layout, I suggest moving the painting to the History section (19th-century nationalism). The head of the article has an image, a ToC, and the ideologies template, and that is too much for clarity.--Paul111 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want my biased opinion (I added the image), the template should be removed instead. It adds nothing to the article.--Nydas 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Third World Nationalism"

I deleted this passage, which is own research and appanently a personal opinion. Apart from anything else it is hostorically inaccurate to speak of Third World nationalism as 'recent', since in some countries there were nationalist movements before 1900.

Recently, we have seen the rise of Third World nationalisms, which are fundamentally at odds with the first world nationalisms seen in nations such as the United States, Britain, Germany, and other former colonial powers. First World nationalism, by its definition, assumes privilege and entitlement, and often is imperialist. Third world nationalisms, by contrast, occur in those nations that have been colonised and exploited. The nationalisms of these nations were forged in a furnace that required resistance to (neo)colonial domination in order to survive. When seen in this way, Third World Nationalism is not simply an "extension" or spreading of the form of nationalism experienced in First World nations. Instead, it is a conscious break from such nationalism since part and parcel of First World nationalism was a need to construct identities for many non-europeans that labelled them as backward, primitive, or inferior. Third World nationalism attempts to ensure that the identities of Third World peoples are authored primarily by themselves, not colonial powers.

--Paul111 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I just thought that I'd say that I love reading your articles guys. Keep up the good work...

--NickGriffin 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That better not actually be Nick Griffin (hope its a satirist hoax), if that is really you, on the behalf of democracy and people who have half a brain cell everywhere I have to say I hate you, and holocaust deniers/islamophobes everywhere.172.143.124.86 00:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan as the first Nation based almost exclusively on Islam and the implications of its failure

Pakistan deserves a mention as the first modern nation that defined its nationality almost solely upon Islam.

The failure of imposing Islam as a basis of nationalism to bridge the ethnic divide between West and East Pakistan when the issue was finally forced, and its subsequent breakup into its ethnic constitutes; Urdu (Modern Pakistan) and Bengali (Bangladesh), demonstrated (in this important social experiment at least) the supremacy of ethnicity over Islam in providing a viable Nationalism and Nationhood for a modern Nation-State.

It has implications for the section concerning Islam and Nationalism in this article that has so far been ignored and desperately needs to be included.

The formation of Pakistan and its breakup is one of the most important chapters in the real world relationships between Islam and Nationalism.

If it had ethnic components, then evidently it was not based solely on Islam. The section is about the criticism of the nation-state by (some) Islamists. That is notable because of their complete rejection of it, whereas most opponents in the West ultimately dropped their opposition.Paul111 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is a rather odd state, It was only created to stop Hindu's and Muslim's killing each other, the creation of Pakistan merely led to more trouble because of East Pakistan I personally hope that the Pakistani government will one day collapse and the territory absorbed by India, As a Brit I apologise to any Indians reading this for letting some extreme Islamists steal part of your country-Ted Fox 00:15, 06 July 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.197.137 (talk)

Peer review of Zionism

I asked for a peer review of the Zionism article, with many issues relaetd to this article. See here Wikipedia:Peer review/Zionism/archive1. Although Zionism is a nationalist movement, the Zionism article has almost nothing on its commonalities with other nationalist movements.Paul111 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sub-section Third World nationalism

I removed this sub-section, which gave as its source Partha Chatterjee. It said among other things:

Third World Nationalism is not simply an "extension" or spreading of the form of nationalism experienced in First World nations. Instead, it is a conscious break from such nationalism

However, Chatterjee's criticism of decolonisation is precisely that the movements copied the Western nation-state, and the typical claims and ideology of Western nationalist movements, which are in his view inappropriate. His work can not be a source for the view expressed in the sub-section, which was not neutral in tone either. Classifying anti-colonial nationalism as a separate type of nationalism, needs a better text and a better source than this.Paul111 12:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge ethnic nationalism

A merge was proposed earlier, the ethnic nationalism article has not improved since. Everything in it is already in the main nationalism article, and since 2005 no-one has taken the trouble to expand it. It could just as well be deleted, since there is no non-redundant content to paste here. But, trying a merge first.Paul111 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although it is a shame that no one has improved that article yet, ethnic nationalism is an important phenomenon and it deserves a separate article. I think it would be better to have it at least as a stub and to wait until someone writes more. There have been many other cases of stubs dormant for years until they attracted attention of a new good contributor. Tankred 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Mitsos 11:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Ethnic nationalism is a whole different kettle of fish, than any other form of nationalism based on a common faith, or nationalism based on multi-ethnic or cosmopolitan compositions. --Petercorless 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Tazmaniacs
• Oppose merge. Significantly different term.--ZayZayEM 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. As Tankred.Sjö 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We would like to be added as a link on this page

Hi, we are from Catalyst magazine. We think that visitors to this page would benefit from the articles in our free magazine and on our website. We would like to be added as a link if possible. If so, please let us know at intern@catalystmagazine.org

Catalyst is a new magazine from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), in the UK. Catalyst was launched in January, and content from the first six issues can be seen at www.catalystmagazine.org, along with regular web exclusive articles. Catalyst’s aim is to encourage debates on race and related issues like equality, identity, nationality, belonging and citizenship, engaging with views across the political spectrum to encourage frank and open discussion.

It is international in scope, covering anything from policy and the law, to economics, politics, sport, the arts and so on. It was launched to shed light on particular issues, rather than promote a CRE line. It is a free, bi-monthly publication, written in plain English so that it is accessible to all, and aimed at a broad, general readership. Anyone can subscribe via the website or by calling our distributors, TSO, on (+44) 0870 240 3697.

Thanks!

The only place it would be appropriate to link to would be from the Commission for Racial Equality article, I think. See Wikipedia:External links. And please don't copy-paste requests onto several talk pages.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ISC and Republic of Croatia

The quote in question:

"The second Yugoslavia broke up into nation states, some with predecessor states such as the Nazi-oriented Independent State of Croatia, some as new sovereign states."

In Constitution of Croatia ISC is explicitly mentioned in preambule as not being a predecessor of Republic of Croatia and it is not considered as such in international law as ISC was not a fully sovereign state.

Agreed. The territory of Croatia was the same as the Yugoslav Republic, not the boundaries of the WWII-era state. However, nationalist designs for a "Greater Croatia," much like a "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Somalia," is notable, as would be the citing of origins of territorial disputes in the wartime redrawing of national boundaries on ethnic or political lines. --Petercorless 09:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note, such probably belongs in the article Ethnic nationalism. I'll add something there. --Petercorless 09:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Hongkyongnae

Hongkyongnae tampered with a quote from M. Crawford Young, to make it appear as if it supported his edit. Third-party quoted sources are not part of Wikipedia text, and should not be edited. Tampering with sources to make them falsely match an edit is unacceptable. He also re-inserted his sub-section on Third World nationalism, again misrepresenting the cited source. According to Hongkyongnae, Partha Chatterjee says that Third World Nationalism is not the same form of nationalism as in First World nations. In fact Chatterjee says almost the opposite, namely that decolonisation movements copied the typical claims and ideology of Western nationalist movements, which are in his view inappropriate.Paul111 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cultural Nationalism section was confusing to me. Maybe you should make it more clear.

Restoring Delacroix

Liberty Leading the People certainly does symbolize French nationalism. It is one of the most recognizable works of fine art in this category as well. --Petercorless 03:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbolizes French nationalism? No it most certainly does not. The event it celebrates - the July 1830 Revolution - saw the French people overthrow their rulers i.e. a civil war, so hardly a symbol of the French nation. The title Liberty Leading the People itself indicates that this was a divided society. Who do you think the people were being led against? It is a fantastic picture, inspiring to all who fight for the liberation of the people from their masters, demonstrating the importance of ideological aspirations, but, and this is the point, it is about an event which was the liberation of the people from their masters from the same nation. It's not liberty from the Nazi oppressors or liberty from the colonial overseers: it is revolution against the established ruling class and as far from nationalism as can be. It symbolises the struggle of the oppressed anywhere, not just in France. I have deleted the picture - it does not belong here as an illustration of nationalism. Emeraude 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

when people come together, in a particular region (in this case for revolution), it's nationalism. when a country of people can be seen as distinct from their ruling class, does that country not nationalize to effectively eradicate the ruler in question? the_undertow ^talk 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Very strange use of language there. It's a revolution, pure and simple. Your use of 'nationalize' is extremely odd. It became a mass movement maybe, but 'nationalised'? Emeraude 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Overthrowing one's rulers is a common nationalist activity, if those rulers are seen as not part of the nation or failing the nation in some way. In the case of the July Revolution, you have a monarch which was keen on maintaining the power of the aristocracy and clergy, both institutions which tend to cut across national lines.--Nydas^(Talk) 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Firstly, overthrowing rulers is not common, let alone a common nationalist activity. The rulers in question here were the embodiment of the nation; there was no suggestion that they were somehow 'outside' the nation, just that were doing a lousy job and oppressing the mass of the people. In that respect there is little difference betweeen this and the Bolshivik Revolution, but no one serioulsy suggests that the Bolshevik revolution had anything to do with nationalism (and if you do, place a picture of the storming of the Winter Palace in this article). Unity of purpose is not the same as nationalism. By your argument, anything that opposes the vested interests of the rulers could be described as nationalism (Parliament in English Civil War, the International Socialists, trade unions, anarchy). Emeraude 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of suggestion that the monarchs were 'outside' the nation; often they'd make deals with foreign powers or the Pope in order to maintain their position, and were executed/deposed as traitors because of it. In theory, an absolute monarch can't commit treason, but with the development of nationalism, they can. I don't believe that the Bolsheviks seriously accused the Tsar of making deals with foreign powers or being a traitor; in fact it was the other way around.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Been away a while!) Actually, not only did the Bolsheviks accuse the Tsar of making deals with foreign powers, they published the secret treaties he had signed! Emeraude (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Medieval nationalism

What about things like "In Bohemia only Czechs should be the masters" or "whoever lives in Poland, should learn Polish" originating in XIV and XV century in late medieval Bohemia and Poland? Doesn't that constitute nationalism? Szopen 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC) BTW, Jerome of Prague (late XIV century) defined nation as being of the same blood, language and faith. Szopen 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree there needs to be some tracing of the concept of nationalism, even if it was called patriotism or some other term prior to the coining of modern nationalism. Ancient Rome had its patriots. Judea had its zealots. Fervor for one's country is not an industrial-era invention, according to primordialists. You are more than free to add to the article, but remember to cite from sources. Do not simply add opinions or random unreferenced quotations. Good point! --Petercorless 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

State-nationalism

Just a heads-up that the main article State nationalism has been tagged with "original research or unattributed claims". I'm also sceptical to the claims, but English isn't my first language, so the term just might be correct in English.Sjö 15:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

United States

The focus of this article seems to be mainly on European nationalism, and mentions little of US nationalism. This would seem to reflect and American POV that the US is somehow 'free' of nationalism, a concept laughable to the rest of the world. Damburger 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, its like you have never talked to an American, thinking that Americans think the US is free of Nationalism. Of course the US does not fit well in to the definition of a nationalism given here, since America is a new nation. Rds865 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do, just look at the bacjlash we have against the illegals here. Look at the increacing animosity to outsorcing, the UN, WTO, NAFTA, that suggests Nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosevelts Ghost (talk • contribs) 07:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not remove the original research tag. An important article of this size must contain more than twelve references. That being said, this article obviously contains some unattributed claims, hence my insertion of a tag that warns of unattributed claims. Whether or not some of these claims are actually original research (viz., never-before-published), I don't know—hence the phrase "may contain original research." What I do know is that this article's deficiency of sources necessarily means that it makes some unattributed claims. Anyway, I don't understand the motivation for removing a tag that reads "Please help Wikipedia by adding references" when this article clearly needs more references. -- WGee 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed your tag because you did not provide reason to use the tag on the talk page. Thank you for doing it now. Would you mind highlighting the parts that need references the most? That would be very helpful. I hope we will be able to add enough references as soon as possible. By the way, there are more than 12 references if you read the whole article, but they are not always cited in a standard way. Sometimes, you can find them in the text as in-line citations (author, year). Well, we should fix that. Tankred 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Typology" section is the one I'm most concerned about, particularly the paragraphs regarding civic nationalism (for it seems indistinguishable from patriotism and "liberal nationalism"), state nationalism (for it seems indistinguishable from fascism), and imperialism (for the paragraph makes some moot assertions, e.g., "The ideology of nationalism is not expansionist in principle"). If we are to discuss the aforementioned variants of nationalism in the article, we need to verify that the they are widely recognized and well defined by political theorists.

Regarding the lead: In my rewrite, I wrote, "a nation . . . has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny." If one says that a nation constitutes (i.e., amounts to) a political community, then it is implied that the borders of the state are congruent with those of the nation. That is why the sentence you inserted, albeit factually accurate, is redundant. -- WGee 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I am not sure all the readers will understand "to constitute" as "to amount to" and not just as "to establish, to found". I highlighted that part of Gellner's definition to avoid ambiguity. Moreover, it is an extremely politically relevant part of the definition because the congruence of borders argument is often used to defend violence: claiming that borders of a political unit do not (and should) encompass all the members of a national unit. I would be really glad if we can leave that sentence in the lead. Tankred 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Typologies

About the current typology, I just wanted to point out about another I am familiar with, that of Michel Seymour :

1. Ethnic: when we think of ourselves as sharing the same ancestral origins.
2. Cultural: when we think of ourselves as having different ancestral origins, but are nevertheless united by a common mother tongue, a common set of institutions and a common territory.
3. Civic: when we share the same country and that this country was made to be a mono-national State.
4. Socio-political: when we participate to the same political community that is not sovereign but contains in its midst the most important sample in the world of a group sharing the same language, the same institutions and the same history.
5. Diaspora: when we belong to a group whose members have the same language, the same culture and the same history but have been dispersed on various discontinuous territories and are a minority inside all these territories.
6. Multi-societal: when the sovereign State is thought of by the majority as being made out of multiple national and cultural societies (United Kingdom).
7. Multi-territorial: when the group is located in a continuous territory but one that does not correspond to juridically recognized borders. For example, the Kurds occupies a territory that is not fragmented (Kurdistan) but its borders do not match the official borders of existing States.

The source is here: http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/11/25/123617.html I translated from French to English. Michel Seymour has many publications in English, so there might be a more official translation than this one. In any case, find this typology quite sensible in that it is not describing how some thinkers might have thought of the nation, something potentially controversial and POV from the start, but instead it tries to describe as neutrally as possibly, without judging, how individuals identify within the community. This makes it possible to sort a much greater number of past and present nations than the ideological typologies. -- Mathieugp 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Someone has been added
ALISON IS COOL!!! thanks kayte **** me and give me back the information someone deleted it? good job there whoever, now no one can do there history assignment
And one of the IP addresses are on their last warning. Don't know what to do (new member). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creepzerg3 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

You can just revert that edit (going to "history", opening the previously saved version of the article for editing and just saving it). This is happening all the time. An IP vandalizing despite the last warning can be added to the list at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Tankred 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaidais As Theoricians for Islam?

in the name of Allah the lord and creator of spacetime.

 Since When, the killer,drug lord,wahabbi branch of Intelligent
 Services of Some Countries are among the theoricians of Islam?
 Or their view has found any value among scholars and clerics in
 Moslem countries? For a comparison is it good to write the views
 of terrorist groups like Hagana or CIA agents as theoricians of
 Jewish and Christian people?  How many "BOOKs" have the
 killers of AlQadia have ever written,(at least read)? A bunch of
 gangesters on mountains can have any influence on students of 
 Moslem countries? It is interesting that jews try to present
 Al Qaida face even in intellectual forums instead of so many
 other streams of thought in Islam.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.207.241.52 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

For All My Liberal Nationalist out there

This user believes in Liberal nationalism.

Jmm6f488 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism in India

I am not very satisfied with the representation of Indian nationalism here. India is mentioned in the religious nationalism section, although it is true that there exist right-wing Hindu (and Muslim) groups in India, but they certainly dont enjoy popular support across the country. The BJP is "de-facto" Hindu nationalist but its official version is not a religious concept (as per its website http://www.bjp.org/philo.htm). The theoretical basis for Indian nationalism is the Constitution of India, although I know that there are many arguments for and against this. I suggest that we not mention India in this page at all. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you have deleted did not imply these parties enjoy strong popular support in India. But they certainly are politically significant. Although BJP claims to represent a wider spectrum of religions, their acts (the Babri Mosque incident) and rhetoric (a plan to "convert" other religious sites) show clear religious influence. I believe they belong to this article. I will restore the deleted sentence and add references to the academic literature. Tankred (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that. But if the communal leanings of one political party are important enough to necessitate the inclusion of India in the religious nationalism category, then the fact that so many Indians speaking so many different languages (please see Languages of India), practicing so many different faiths (please see Demographics of India) and belonging to different cultures should be ample evidence to include India in the other categories (civic or third-world). There are arguments against this too, I know. I just think that as a country, India is too young to have developed any strong sense of deep nationalism. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the Indian nationalism deserves to be discussed in the "third world nationalism" section because it is a very interesting and well studied case. Unfortunately, I am now working on other projects, so I cannot be of much help here. But if you have any expertise in this area, please feel free to add more information. Tankred (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Nationalists (party of China)?

Why is the article "Nationalists" or "Nationalist" automatically directed to here when it's referring to a party in China(Kuomintang)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nation States

France, Spain, Great Britain are listed as not nation-states. I understand Great Britain, since it is made up of nations with some autonomy(Scotland, England, Whales etc). But isn't France a nation state? I know there are varying definitions of nation, and some may think that a certain group is a nation, when another may think it is a regional part of a larger nation. Rds865 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The role of Nationalism in Union and Secession

Nationalism has been used by those who seek to unite a group, as well as those who seek independence. This should be explained. Certainly new nations have been made by the political union of various states. Such as the case with most nations. Other times if one nation conquers another, it may eventually claim that nation as part of the conquered nation. For this reason, nations are created within a nation. Rds865 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion and Nationalism are mutually exclusive.98.165.6.225 (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

religion-ising

I'd like to substitute this with an actual existing English word but I am having trouble visualising one. All suggestions welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious Nationalism

As an editor of the article Nationalism, please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

In view of the constant nationalist bickering within Wikipedia, this article becomes particularly important. I believe that all editors should concentrate their efforts on providing additional sources and inline citations--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The "Theoretical Literature" section is indeed very valuable. One can find almost all necessary citations in this small corpus so why not provide them? This should be enough to substantiate the (large) excerpts in the article that are presently unsourced--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Frente Nacional

If there isn't already one, can somebody link "nationalist" in Franco, Spanish Civil War, & here to a Spanish Nationalist page? Or create one? I couldn't find a "nationalist" link to the Spanish ones... (I don't think Frente Nacional was around in '36...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)