Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:11, 17 February 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

DUP-UKIP-BNP Merger

I have removed the above section. There are a number of reasons for doing this, and I don't attempt to prioritise them:

- the section appeared twice. I'm sure this was an oversight, but at least one version had to go

- nothing in it was sourced. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, and we need to be able to say where our information comes from.

- to me, it doesn't feel as if this is the right article for this information. The tone of the existing article seems to be about British Nationalism in general, and admits of the possibility at least that there may be a left wing variety, but the new information is about parties which would happily define themselves as being on the right.

If the information can be verified, then there's a place for it in wikipedia. But I'm not sure this article is the place.

Grblundell (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lede

This sentence in the lede does not actually make sense:

As Britain has been the place where both Conservatism and Liberalism have grown, Nationalism has been new to both the 20th and 21st century ever since the collapse of the British Empire, mass immigration, globalism and the EU resulting with extreme opposition from Nationalist groups such as the National Front which gained mass support in the 1970s and today's British National Party. Some elements have occurred in the United Kingdom Independence Party where they have eschewed the EU and have a 5-year pause on immigration.

I am removing it. It needs re-writing if it is to be included.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and Unionism

This section looks like it needs to be redone and reorganised as it appears to have strayed from actually explaining that English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish nationalism and unionism are opposing political forces/British nationalism is associated with unionism. It could generally do with a bit of restructuring, in my opinion. It also seems quite lacking in references.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Labour, Lib Dems?

I don't really see how Labour or the Liberal Democrats are British nationalists to any notable extent--Matt Downey (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to people who keep removing this: Irish people have been considered a British people by British nationalists, and currently there are more Irish living in the UK than in the Republic of Ireland

Regardless of the political conflict between Irish nationalists versus the British government, the fact remains that British nationalism is based upon the view that all people of the British Isles as being British people - including English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh peoples in particular. The UK has accepted the independence of the Republic of Ireland, but that does not mean that ethnic Irish have ceased to be viewed as a British people, the UK continues to use the Irish Saint Patrick's Saltire on the Union Jack, and the UK's coat of arms include the Irish Clàrsach. As of today, the ethnic Irish population in Britain is NOT small or insignificant, note that current statistics state that while 4,500,000 ethnic Irish live in the Republic of Ireland, that a larger number of 6,000,000 ethnic Irish live in the United Kingdom.--74.12.192.5 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, not back it up with some citations. Also if you are editing under different ID please stop. Leave the article as it is until you have agreement here to change it. ----Snowded 06:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't sign in before, stop violating WP:Assume good faith. But what you've said is total nonsense. YES, Irish people have been part of the United Kingdom - both historically and to this day. British nationalism sought to include the Irish. Irish symbolism is used on the British coat of arms. You have no right to order me to distort a reliable source that I added, that you endorse distorting by taking out "Irish" and putting in only "Northern Irish" - there are a substantial number of British people with Irish descent, those who are 25% + Irish descent (one grandmother or grandfather) account for 6,000,000 people or 10% of the population of the UK and such people can also apply for Republic of Ireland citizenship, see here: . As I have said, there are numerically more people of Irish descent living in the UK than in the Republic of Ireland, if you don't believe me you can look it up yourself, start by reading material on Irish in Great Britain, here: Irish migration to Great Britain. --R-41 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BNP don't belong in this article

The BNP has no place in this article, as stated on their wiki page they are white nationalists, they don't need a special mention on a page about British Nationalism. There is no mention of Neo-Nazi groups in the American Nationalism wiki page and no mention of the National Front in the French article which is a huge party compared to the BNP.JasonnF (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting the BNP are not British nationalists? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the BNP say on their web site, there is a reliable source referenced in the article which places them within the field. You need to argue against that or come up with other third party sources to support your views. ----Snowded 07:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The BNP are a tiny minority of British Nationalism so why do they get a special mention in this page? If any political party deserves a mention on this page it's UKIP, it is hugely more popular than BNP. The article currently reads as though the BNP and other Neo-Nazi groups are a big part of British Nationalism and this simply isn't the case. JasonnF (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a reference and we can include UKIP. Otherwise references count over your opinion, its way things work around here ----Snowded 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank god Misplaced Pages has you two around to remind us how evil and racist British people are. JasonnF (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Read up on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I suggest you strike the above remark. If you can't keep your own opinions out of discussion you will get no where here. Read up on WP:RS, that describes how material is sourced. ----Snowded 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentences in the intro as it is re-arranged appears POV

First of all as a note: I forgot to sign in before, when I reverted two edits to the intro.

Now to the point:

The way the intro has been written now is clearly aiming at a POV of delegitimizing the British nationalist claim by strongly suggesting that the possibility of the existence of a British nation is merely hypothetical. First of all this is an article about British nationalism, so in order to describe it, we mention their claim that they view the British people as composing a nation. Second of all, the way I wrote it was concise and clear.

This does not mean that I am advocating the opposite stance that there is a British nation "cast in stone" that "obviously" exists, but I am inquiring something. If the user or users imply that the British nation is hypothetical has based such a stance on the common and very valid scholarly argument that all ethnicities and nationalities are socially-constructed identities, by logic if the British nation should be labelled as a socially-constructed hypothetical community out of the English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh; then why has/have the user or users, not also taken their efforts to the articles on English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh nationalisms, and state that their identified nations are also hypothetical communities?--R-41 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead and nations within nations

I removed this statement not only because it is appallingly phrased but, more importantly, because it is self-evidently not true, as a matter of deductive logic and basic common description. You can be a British nationalist while also accepting the nationhood of Wales, England etc. Plenty of British nationalists make this very point (often when trying to bat off "separatist" nationalism). And the defence that the content is "sourced" falls rather flat when one looks at the book itself and see that pp62-63 says nothing whatsoever about British nationalism "rejecting the claim that the British are a collection of nations" or anything similar. Indeed, later in the book (p144) a visible online excerpt suggests that the text at that point says that the constituent parts of the UK all "shared in" British nationalism.
This highlights two problems: so many changes and switches have been made to content in the lead by two warring editors that there was no longer any clear association or link between this claim and the source being used to directly support it (it seems to have been first slotted in with this edit, at a point when those cited pages were actually being used to back up a different point); and even if it had been there in the Motyl text, it would only have been one opinion. One source does not and cannot provide definitive fact when it comes to this sort of thing. Someone please sort it out. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you can be a British patriot and regard Britain to be composed by multiple nations. Patriotism involves a connection to a country or homeland. But if you are a British nationalist, you believe that the British are a nation. Patriotism and nationalism are often blurred or connected but the distinction is between a commitment to a country or homeland in patriotism, and a commitment to a community group in nationalism. Nationalists typically justify incorporation of self-identified ethnic groups by regarding them as akin to a tribal branch of a nation that has interconnecting cultural bonds between them.--R-41 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's your personal definition of the terms and concepts and the distinctions between them, and your personal opinion of how they might apply in this context, but WP isn't much interested in that. Things are rarely that simplistically definitive and so strictly distinguished: as the fact that there was in fact no specific source for the explicit claim about British nationalism by definition denying the nationhood of the constituent parts that I removed demonstrates. It's touching that you continue to assert your faith in it though, and do so in quite such a patronising tone. N-HH talk/edits 11:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Stub-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles