Talk:Neo-nationalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Nationalism (Theodore Roosevelt) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Too many opinionated sources

I have an issue with this article. As it is constructed, it is an opinionated article i.e. it gives the opinions of various journalists or intellectuals about the surge of nationalism in the Western world. With pejorative quotes as "bitter populism" and "jealous nationalism", this Wikipedia article doesn't attempt to give a balanced or neutral vision of recent events but rather reflect the opinion of the writer(s) through the opinions of others. It is also pretty telling that none of the cited opinions actually comes from people who refer to themselves as neo-nationalists but rather from third-parties opposed to these "neo-nationalists". As also signaled in the article, the term "neo-nationalist" seem to be a catch-all phrase, which applies to Western nationalists but also nationalists to the Middle-East (Erdogan) or Asia (Xi Jinping), indicating the contested nature of this term rather than a true fleshed-out ideology. As the article is now, it requires a complete overhaul with a severe reduction in opinion article sources and an increase in more peer-reviewed scholarly sources, with more emphasis on usage of this term by critics rather than proponents. Otherwise I think it should be removed. 84.197.153.81 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This article also includes several citations to globalresearch.ca, which often publishes misleading articles. Jarble (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

'Conservative views' and 'Liberal views' subsections

Regarding this edit: I have removed the ideological subsections from the 'Overview and characteristics' section. This is an understandable approach, but for one thing, The Week isn't necessarily conservative, and the Economist isn't necessarily liberal. More importantly, splitting commentary up like this implies that there is consensus among each sides regarding neonationalism. This is not the case at all, since both liberals and conservatives have a range of positions on the issue, which the section already explains. If that wasn't the intended implication, why was this divide up like that?

Conservative views of neo-nationalism are significantly more divided than liberal views internationally, with many traditional or moderate conservatives (including neo-conservatives and conservative-leaning libertarians) standing as hard-line skeptics of neo-nationalism's revolutionary and radical reformist mentality. This is an interesting point, but it needs a reliable source. If somebody wants to restore that, I would accept doing so with a CN tag, but it's using vague language to imply broad statements, which isn't good. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for merge

I propose that we merge Patriotic Spring here. This 2010 article already covers Geert Wilders and related parties, and is vastly better written than Patriotic Spring, started three months ago. "Patriotic Spring" is a term coined by Wilders, and is just one of several terms used for what's described in this article. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a great idea! I agree with Uncle Roy! --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. That page should remain so as to focus more on the general timeline and exact events (elections, referendums, etc., etc.) that constitute the Patriot Spring. This New Nationalism page can focus more on the ideology itself and what it may or may not entail. The Patriotic Spring page can serve the same function as the Pink tide page - a focus on the trends that result from the ideology, which is indeed a historic trend that is worthy of such a term as the title of the article suggests, and is a separate subject from the ideology in and of itself. 169.231.45.170 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure at the moment. There is a lot of content overlap, but there are also some differences. For example, the Patriotic Spring refers to recent shifts in election results, while the New Nationalism can also apply to those where the status quo has maintained (United Russia/Putin) or completely undemocratic rule (Sisi or XInping). If the pages were to be merged, the Patriotic Spring should be merged into this page, rather than vice-versa. I am worried the other page has too much OR (i.e. the author has assumed that nationalist or rw populist political victories are part of the Patriotic Spring rather than finding sources that connect them to the Patriotic Spring). --Jay942942 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh that merge is a no-brainer. Volunteer Marek  23:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Article's name

Why isn't this article more simply named New nationalism? "(21st century)" is a redundant disambiguation, in my view. --Checco (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not seen as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over New Nationalism (Theodore Roosevelt).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

The whole concept seems much close to OR and "synthesis" - does not seem to be many sources calling all these movements "neo-nationalists" (instead of simply "nationalistas", "right-wing populists", etc.)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations from The Wall Street Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, Politico and Newsday are sufficient to show that this is not in any way "OR" or "SYNTH". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrectly calling the movement "alt-right" and obvious bias in editing

Some of the editors for this page are dubious and are incorrectly relating New Nationalism to the alt-right or White nationalism. This is not the case. Neither Trump, nor Marine Le Pen or any of the "neo-nationalists" or their movements are alt-right, and none of them are comparable to the alt-right itself. They are right-wing but not alt-right, and until there is any substantive proof to say otherwise, it's only appropriate to stop slandering the movement with opinions over facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SixMillionStrong (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The "see also" section is for topics which are related. It's not intended to be a list of synonyms. See WP:SEEALSO. Including the alt-right in the see also section just means that it's connected and may be of interest to readers. Are you saying that two right-wing populist movements spawned in the 2010s don't overlap in membership and relevance at all? That's a bit hard to take seriously. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say Le Pen is left wing and socialist. For instance, she wants less capitalism and more state control of industry. Skingski (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename to "New-Nationalism"

More sources in the content says to it is about "New-Nationalism". Especially desrciption about current political and state leaders, their parties etc. More easy to find and more easy to be cited and educational. Couple of sources what call it "Neo-Nationalism" even some of them writen in 2014 etc, didnt made it wider accepted. I think to it is sensitive topic so it should be totally removedfrom any kind of bias, personal opinions, personal researches. So if one neme is more wide accepted it should be that one what is used. This what I wrote is just my personal opinion and try to improve content in general. Thank you. MilanVuko1 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move - "Neo-nationalism" 12.4 million Ghits, "New nationalism" 407k Ghits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Case of Spain

Hi everyone! I would like to ask if it is possible to add the case of Spain, with the rising of VOX. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.96.246 (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Make a page about the "Populist wave"

This article is about the rising ideology but wikipedia should have a page for the many right-wing movements and leaders that have gained influence in the late 2010s commonly referred to as the Populist wave. Anybody want to help out?Mangokeylime (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but see Populism#Late 20th and early 21st century growth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The populist wave is not exclusively right-wing, it's an addition of national populism and left-wing populism. Azerty82 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Meaningless Media Buzzword

Nothing in this article explains how this 'new nationalism' holds any unique characteristics at all. Not a single political figure or party listed here identifies as a 'new nationalist', they are simply nationalists.

Propose deletion or merging as a footnote into the main article on 'Nationalism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevardian (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to make some correction regarding the formation and the concept itself. I would like to add how and what bases neo-nationalism was formed. SImilarities with the classical nationalism, and the departure point with its unique features. Further, I would like to add subsections to distinguish between nationalism as an ideology and as a movement. Since the concept is very new, I would like to add more information about the shape of its development and the application to the current time period, pointing at particular events. This will demonstrate how exactly nao-nationalism is expressed and exercised in both contexts, as a movement and as an ideology.

Contribution

I am planning to add the specific chain of events and the roots of development that caused the formation of neo-nationalism that is actually much earlier compared to the date showing now. Further, I wish to add the distinction between an ideology and a movement. Moreover, I would like to add the historical development and the fundamental differences and similarities between neo-nationalism and its predecessor- nationalism. Lastly, I will be happy to add some of the specific elements of neo-nationalism as a movement apart from its expression as an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonique Berchtold (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong nationalism

The section does not seem to belong to the article's scope which is neo-nationalism. It is grassroot in nature and lack of right-wing populism and anti-globalization as defined in lead section. None of the sources state this characterization. Should move section to appropriate article such as Hong Kong nationalism or Hong Kong independence. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It is perfectly in scope, and the new sources I provided to support the information are The New York Times and two academic studies. You are edit warring, please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources failed to address my points. None of the sources provided contain the word "neo-nationalism", instead heavily on grassroot nationalism, which is quite the opposite (not motivated by a leader). This is not an edit war as you have not provided enough sources to justify the include of this section into article. Please find sources that state the Hong Kong localism and nationalism is viewed as neo-nationalism, per WP:NORM. Please do not roll back edits until you find these sources, per WP:ONUS.

I put the deleted section that you were trying to revert here. In the section, leaders in various countries are described as neo-nationalistic, with sources provided. No where in the paragraph is Hong Kong nationalism or its leader is described as right wing neo-nationalists. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong nationalism evolved from the localist movement there and stresses the distinct Hong Kong identity as opposed to the Chinese national identity promoted by the Chinese government and its growing encroachment on the city's management of its own political, economic and social affairs. In an allusion to "one country, two systems" which was supposed to protect Hong Kong from being subsumed into China's political system, one scholar has called the new circumstances "one country, two nationalisms"

"Neo-nationalism" simply means "new nationalism", meaning new expressions of nationlism, which certainly fits. It's not some new ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statements "nationalism is nationalism" and "Neo-nationalism" simply means "new nationalism" contradict the content of this article, it is original research and not NPOV. Let's not make an edit war and revert my edits until you find a better source or more concensus is reached on the issue. Thanks. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Neo-nationalism is not newly occured nationalism, it refers to recent phenomenon of populists who rises in power in certain countries and refuse the international order of democratization following the end of the Cold War. In Hong Kong: there is no populism leader, the localism movement does not call for anti-globalization nor other right-wing discourses, it simply calls for Hong Kong autonomy. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Marine le pen alongside world leaders ?

Several political parties that have come to power and marine le pens name is with world leaders that have actually come into power marine le pen is a powerful politician but she hasn’t come into power as of 2021 Black roses124 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This notion is too vague to have a detailed article like this

The meaning of this concept is too vague, and having a long (exhaustive-looking?) list of politicians is really futile. It would be better to have a shorter article with a more precise definition, and with just a few politicians mentioned. Otherwise, it is just an article labeling politicians who are quite different from each other. In other words, the article should be more of a Wiktionary style because this concept is pseudo-scientific at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.246 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban communist ruling party

Are there any sources directly described as "neo-nationalists"? If not, it is a clear POV to write them down on the list. See WP:SYNTH -Mureungdowon (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source that communist political parties in Cuba, Laos and North Korea are Neo-nationalists? In addition to the Chinese Communist Party, is there a ruling Communist Party that supports hegemonic Neo-nationalism in 2023?? Mureungdowon (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always be based on sources. However, the source should state "neo-nationalist". The parties are described as "left-wing nationalists" but not "neo-nationalists". Chinese Communist Party is the only neo-nationalist. Korean/Vietnamese/Cuban Communist Party is NOT neo-nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If we should simply regard the source as neo-nationalist because "nationalist" is included, all modern nationalists should be considered neo-nationalist. It is absurd. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You edits have been reverted, meaning that they are contested. You must stop making these kinds of edits until you have a consensus from the editors on this talk page to make them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So comment on why you're against my editing. Why do you think Kim Jong-un or the Vietnamese Communist Party is a neo-nationalist?? Mureungdowon (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep repeating to me that you didn't become 'consensus'. Is it the view that Kim Jong-un, the Vietnamese Communist Party, and the Cuban Communist Party are neo-nationalists among users? There is no such 'consensus' on the Talk page. You have no reason to interrupt my editing. Mureungdowon (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I ask Beyond My Ken. Why do you think Kim Jong-un is a neo-nationalist? You don't talk about this at all, just say there's no 'consensus'. You have so far given no reason why my editing is inappropriate. Just because Kim Jong-un is a left-wing nationalist, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a neo-nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources of the neo-nationalist article describes Kim Jong-un as a neo-nationalist. Original research should be removed immediately. If you disagree with me, write down on the TALK PAGE what you think Kim Jong-un is a neo-nationalist. There is no 'consensus' that Kim Jong-un is a neo-nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)