Jump to content

Template talk:Nationalism sidebar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Random icon

[edit]

@Yr Enw: So I can pick any random icon and put it on wiki right? For example for page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Party_politics there could be some cocktail icon with people because it's party and politics right? I already stated in edit that it's just random icon - unofficial, misleading and grayscale - so it's just decorative and it is against wiki rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons --78.80.80.92 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the MoS does this break?
Why is the icon in question misleading ? As to it being unofficial, there is no “official” icon of nationalism, so that obstacle is insurmountable and not a requirement for abstract concepts like nationalism. Yr Enw (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! No official icon, that's what I am saying. My first though on nationalism page was "what? nationalism has OFFICIAL icon?" so it's misleading and it's only decorative MOS:DECORATION e.g. Anarcho Capitalism is also just ideology and has flag. It should be explicit that it's just random icon or preferably it should be removed completely. 78.80.80.92 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Well, I’m really not that bothered, but given there was an earlier discussion on this Talk of an older icon (the painting, which imo is much better), it would be useful to get other editors’ input. Yr Enw (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly you already agreed that my points are valid, so I will remove icon again during next month, if nobody gives a good reason to keep it, despite it's obviously against rules. It's same case as random blag flag and Delacroix's painting below. We don't have to put there icon/image at any cost. If there is not a good representative image, then there simply won't be one. 78.80.80.92 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me Yr Enw (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Flag

[edit]

I'm curious as to why a black flag has been chosen to represent nationalism. In the English-speaking world, the black flag traditionally represents (among other things) anarchism, which is the opposite of nationalism, so I'd think it was singularly inappropriate as a symbol for nationalism. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 13:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It was added last month [1] by an IP with no other edits. I have removed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As black is a representative of anarchism, which is the opposite of nationalism, should the white flag be used instead? Humongous125 (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you are serious but white flag has nothing to do with nationalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delacroix's painting

[edit]

Delacroix's painting is about political freedom, not nationalism. It celebrates the 1830 French Revolution, which was opposed to a King who oppressed the people (France was not at war with other countries then). The French flag, in this painting, is a symbol of freedom and other Revolutionary values (as opposed to the King's white flag). Read Liberty Leading the People before trying to add it again to the template. Seudo (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is largely about political freedom, it's a broad ideology though and includes various other things but opposition to people who they see as oppressive or detrimental to the people of the nation is a commonality among nationalists. Liberty Leading the People is one of the most well-known of the Romantic nationalism genre and also is used as the cover for a book entitled "Containing Nationalism". See here at Oxford University Press: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/containing-nationalism-9780199247516 Zaostao (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that this painting is a very bad choice. I don't think anybody who really understands French history would use it to illustrate nationalism. Seudo (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a better image for French Republicanism if that was a sidebar, I agree, but still don't see the problem with it for Nationalism link. Trampling on bodies to fly the people's flag is very nationalistic in my view. Zaostao (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the painting has nothing to do with nationalism as presented in the nationalism sidebar, and is inappropriate. I've removed it. Rockypedia (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific argument you have against it as I have presented for its inclusion or do you just not like it? --Zaostao (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my reason above. Rockypedia (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No you just stated that you think it's inappropriate, are you able to expand on that or is it just a feeling? Zaostao (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that the French flag in this paiting is not nationalistic since it was opposed to the official French flag (which was white). You may not understand this if you are British or American, since I believe this distinction did not exist in these countries (the American flag means both the independence and the federal political system). Delacroix's painting has such a powerful composition that everybody tries to use it for his own purpose (these days it promotes the environment in the Paris metro, and plastic surgery in the Seoul subway). I wish Wikipedia tried to understand things a little better. Seudo (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would never occur to me to link this to nationalism. It definitely doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of credible sources state that the French Revolution was at its heart a Nationalist revolution. Please do not edit Wikipedia based on what occurs to you. Nelsonsfx (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The French Revolution is historically connected to nationalism, but that's not made particularly clear from the template, so it's an odd choice. "Nationalism" is not inherently French, but the painting is very, very French. The template is a list of articles providing a broad overview, so linking 'nationalism' as a broad concept to one specific country is misleading, confusing, and potentially inflammatory. This specific image is also not unambiguously connected to nationalism, either. It's also used as the image for Template:Revolution sidebar, which is another source of confusion, as those two concepts are frequently opposed to each other. I don't particularly like it there, either, honestly, although the thematic connection is more clear. To my eyes it's too busy as a thumbnail to be clear or meaningful to people who aren't already familiar with the painting. In that case, what's the point? Is it serving any purpose other than decoration, and isn't that just promotion by flattery? It's also used at around 300 articles on English Wikipedia, making it likely candidate for being overused or a visual cliche. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism as sub-category

[edit]

As white nationalism is a significant topic, it should be listed in the sub-categories. I've added it. Another editor has removed it three times, without any good concrete reasons. Opening up to discussion here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 has just added Black nationalism, so I suppose we'll be adding all subsets of ethno-nationalism/racial-nationalism in which case white- is fine. Zaostao (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to including both, but neither white nor black nationalism is specifically mentioned at Types of nationalism. Since that's linked by the template as the main, organizing article for the subsection (which makes sense), then it should probably be confined to topics which are at least mentioned there, or that article should be expanded if appropriate.
My inclination is to focus and categorize navboxes as tightly as possible, because I don't believe most people pay attention to long, open ones. It's a big wall of text, and that's just going to cause eyes to gloss-over. While I don't object to including both, black nationalism and white nationalism are radically different in history, size, scope, coverage, and intent, and just because they both have 'nationalism' in their names should not be a major deciding factor here. Again (and again and again and again) they are very different concepts and should not always be tied together regardless of context.
This sidebar overlaps with Template:Nationalism. That happens with navboxes, and isn't necessarily a problem, but in that case it makes sense to confine one to a more narrow overview while using the other for more general exploration of the topic. Otherwise they both tend to drift into personal opinion (well, more than usual, anyway) and redundancy. If that can't be done, one will probably eventually get deleted. I think this is in a policy or guideline somewhere, but hell if I can find it. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
White nationalism isn't so much a "type" of nationalism, but rather an "example" of nationalism. The type is "ethnic nationalism".VR talk 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should be broad, although I'm not opposed to using prominent examples in brackets next to their type.--31.205.130.62 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Nationalism portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between Nation and Nationalism

[edit]

Every nation has an anthem, this colours, its emblem, flag, indentity and so on. For instance, a national flag does not imply nationalism. I would delete such nation related items from the template.--Geysirhead (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, because nationalism is what gives rise to a belief in "nations" in the first place.
Gellner, for example, provides a commonly cited definition of nationalism as the belief a state and nation should be congruent. John Anderson is perhaps more explicit in defining it as: '[The belief in the] right of individuals to choose the state to which they belong, that is, to establish territorial political structures corresponding to their consciousness of group identity' (Nations Before Nationalism, p.4)
Thus "nation" is inseparable from the concept that gives rise to it (ie. nationalism). Yr Enw (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I meant John Armstrong Yr Enw (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/Moving of certain "Types"

[edit]

I removed "Conservative nationalism" from the list of Types, because it linked to the page National conservativism, which was a type of Conservativism rather than a form of nationalism, to my mind.

I also moved Banal nationalism into the "Related Concepts" section, because it is not accurate to portray this as a "type" of nationalism. It is, as the article suggests, about processes by which national identity is fostered and reproduced rather than a form of nationalism. Did the same for "Jingoism" as this more a technique used by nationalists.

Also removed Alt-right and Chauvinism because these are not a types of nationalism. I accept the Alt-right do advocate nationalism, but this does not make "Alt-right" itself a nationalism.

I think there is an argument to be made more supposed "types" could be moved/removed, but have restricted myself to these. Yr Enw (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selective examples

[edit]

why does this includes Irish nationalism but not othes like German nationalism? We should remove it or include all others. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just different editors have sporadically added them at various times. This evokes a wider question: is having examples of certain types useful (as the template currently stands) or does it cause more problems it adds? Admittedly, scholarship is inconsistent in how it classifies certain existing nationalisms (Rogers Brubaker convincingly argues all actually-existing nationalisms contain elements of different “types”). Yr Enw (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove the Irish one as it is added recently and is nothing special compared to other country related nationalism. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings about that, but is the timing of an addition a sufficient criteria for removing examples though? What would you say are archetypical civic nationalisms? To me, France and the US are probably the most commonly cited examples. Yr Enw (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian one has multiple page issues and should be removed. The only good one is the American nationalism on quality. The Irish needs some sources but not bad as Indian nationalism. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go ahead and make those changes, I wouldn't oppose them. I may add in French nationalism under Civic. Please just make sure you mirror the changes in Template:Nationalism. Yr Enw (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, removing the Indian example is fine but I have a problem with you adding German nationalism as an example of “Civic”, because we well know historically it has also manifested as racial and ethnic nationalism. Wanted to comment here before reverting in case there’s something I am missing. Yr Enw (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Nationalism_sidebar&oldid=1230523389"