|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nationalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|Nationalism has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): EvanRichardson97.|
This section is very specific to Yugoslavia and "Balkanization" and doesn't really speak to the rest of the former USSR, so should perhaps be renamed "Yugoslavia" or "Former Yugoslavia" or even "The Balkans".
This section oversimplifies ethnic divisions in the former Yugoslavia as some points speaking about the main three as "Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes", which leaves out Ethnic Albanians and/or Bosniaks. Even the discussion of how to delineate ethnic groups as they pertain to Nationalisms and how groups define themselves vs how they are defined by their Balkan Neighbors vs how they are defined by the US would be interesting.
This section sounds to me a little biased against Yugoslav Nationalism as an idea as though it were destined to fail because of some basic (Nationalistic) truth:
Within Yugoslavia, separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia is an invisible line of previous conquers of the region. Croatia and Slovenia to the northwest were conquered by Catholics or Protestants, and benefited from European history; the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and are more inclined towards democracy. The remaining Yugoslavian territory was conquered by the Ottoman or Tsarists empires; are Orthodox or Muslims, are less economically advanced and are less inclined toward democracy.
I think saying an entire ethnic group is prone or not prone to democracy is overly simplistic, even jingoistic and those types of statements result from Nationalism.
This section needs to be written better. It's too conversational. Probably there's somewhere better to link to, like the Balkan Wars to explain the conflict:
In the 1980s Yugoslavia began to break into fragments. The economic conditions within Yugoslavia were deteriorating. Conflict in the disputed territories was stimulated by the rise in mass nationalism and inter-ethnic hostilities. The per-capita income of people in the northwest territory, encompassing Croatia and Slovenia, in contrast to the southern territory were several times higher. This combined with escalating violence from ethnic Albanians and Serbs within Kosovo intensified economic conditions. This violence greatly contributed to the rise of extreme nationalism of Serbs in Serbia and within Yugoslavia. The ongoing conflict in Kosovo was propagandized by Communist Serbian Slobodan Milosevic to further increase Serb nationalism. As mentioned, this nationalism did give rise to powerful emotions which grew the force of Serbian nationalism through highly nationalist demonstrations in Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Serbian nationalism was so high, Slobodan Milosevic was able to oust leaders in Vojvodina and Montenegro, further repressed Albanians within Kosovo and eventually controlled four of the eight regions/territories. Slovenia, one of the four regions not under Communist control, favoring a democratic state.
Gender and nationalismEdit
Newbie here! I noticed that gendered and muscular nationalism are listed as types of nationalism on this page and am considering building a new article dedicated solely to gender and nationalism. I'm interested in what the editors and watchers of this article might suggest? (Slothstuff (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC))
- Good project! Look at Rai, Shirin M. Gender and the political economy of development: From nationalism to globalization. (2013); Oza, Rupal. The making of neoliberal India: Nationalism, gender, and the paradoxes of globalization. (2012); Riabov, Oleg, and Tatiana Riabova. "The remasculinization of Russia? Gender, nationalism, and the legitimation of power under Vladimir Putin." iProblems of Post-communism 61.2 (2014): 23-35; Banerjee, Sikata. Make me a man!: masculinity, Hinduism, and nationalism in India. (2012). Also from footnote 169: Gender ironies of nationalism: Sexing the nation by Mayer looks at Indonesia, Ireland, Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sri Lanka, Australia, the USA, Turkey, China etc Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Cite error: The opening
<ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
Nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th centuryEdit
The lead of the article currently states:
Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century
How then does one explains England where the concept of the nation existed in the 17th century?
See for example:
- Mark Stoyle, "English 'Nationalism', Celtic Particularism, and the English Civil War", Historical Journal,43/04 (2000).
He argues that Englisness was a major factor in the Civil Wars. That at the outbreak of English Civil War was accompanied by a fear of foreign invasion.
Gavin Robinson in Horses, People and Parliament in the English Civil War states that non-English people were often represented as barbarous and inhuman (page 72).
- "We were not a mere mercenary army hired to serve any arbitrary power of a state, but were called forth ... to the defence of our own and the people's just rights and liberties."
Thomas Rainsborough for the Levellers argued:
- "Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under."
- the Grandees view
- "no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom". Giving among other categories foreigners
Neither side were debating if the nation of England was a political entity that existed whether or not there was a king, that was a given, and the republicans of the New Model Army went on to execute "Charles Stuart, that man of blood", set up the republican English Commonwealth and introduced a written constitution called the "Instrument of Government". What is the difference between nationalism that drove the English nation to create a republic in 1649 and say the American Declaration of Independence 1776 about 130 years later or the French Revolution 20 years later still?
Should a 1 sentence definition of "nation" be included in the article on "nationalism"?Edit
Should a 1 sentence definition of "nation" be included in the article on "nationalism"? Or should the reader be forced to read the "nation" article before she can get on with understanding this one? Links are helpful, but they should not be essential to the understanding of an article. "nation" and "nationalism" are inextricably linked. Danielx (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Has there been any prior discussion for this? Per WP:RFCBEFORE, you should probably just try making the edit (if you haven't), then discuss it if someone objects, and only go to an RFC if you can't reach consensus. Without that prior discussion it's hard to understand exactly what this RFC is proposing. That said, I don't think it's necessary to define the world 'nation', since its meaning is reasonably well-known. --Aquillion (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - (Summoned by bot) There should be an informal discussion before RfC. Meatsgains(talk) 23:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree, the vast majority of readers have sufficient knowledge of the English language to know what nation means. The link is there for the very few who don't. For that reason, I reverted you (twice) a fortnight ago and asked you to bring the matter to the talk page. If a reader has any confusion about the term then they are better reading the full article anyway rather than a single definition which could easily introduce a PoV. It is not normal on Wikipedia to initiate an RfC without first discussing the matter on the talk page. An RfC is for when there is no consensus here. -----Snowded TALK 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Many English speakers get the definition of "nation" conflated with "state". It's a very common mistake not helped by the constant usage of the word "multinational" to refer to an organization composed of multiple states. Critiquing Danielx for not following proper protocol is useless since the RfC has already begun and people (e.g. me) have come to comment on it. Sure he should've brought it up on the talk page first but thats not the point of this discussion. The RfC starter is right in my opinion. "Nation" should be clarified. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree we should include a very short definition so readers don't confuse "nation" with "state". I suggest something like "Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people)...". ~Asarlaí 22:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)