Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 10 September 2019

Politics Stub‑class Low‑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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't think ultranationalism should link to the nationalism page, and instead should have a page of its own. Ultranationalism is very different from normal nationalism as it is far more extreme. At the very least the page 'nationalism' should have a specific section on ultranationalism before the phrase ultranationalism is linked to it. Helper201 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. Charles Essie (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of any good sources that explain ultranationalism (beyond a simple definition)? I've only had a quick check but I can't find anything that explains it in a detailed manner that could be relied upon as a citation. Helper201 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware of any good sources that explain ultranationalism (beyond a simple definition)? I've only had a quick check but I can't find anything that explains it in a detailed manner that could be relied upon as a citation. Helper201 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Any ideology can exist in an extreme form, that doesn't warrant a specific article (ultraliberals, ultra communism etc.). There is nothing special about nationalism existing in extreme form. Besides the sources for this article are quite poor. Citing an author of an article out of context as if he was a household name doesn't work well.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cyprian P. Blamires, Ph.D., is a freelance scholar, editor, writer, and translator based in the United Kingdom". This guy doesn't exactly sound like a leading authority (no tenure apparently) and he is the only source (apart from a dictionary definition).--Batmacumba (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I have never heard of "ultraliberals" or "ultra communism". "Utlraliberal" sounds like a derogatory US specific term. Where a specific term exists I think it is important to use and explain it. The more specific and accurate an article is, the better. Whether an author is a household name or not makes no difference. The person is sourced because they are commenting on ultranationaism academically in a book specifically discussing fascism (a related topic). Helper201 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

An article doesn't automatically become more accurate by using a more specific term, if that term is too narrow or misleading. When it comes to nationalism there is a wide range of qualifiers that are more helpful than "ultra". Such as ethnonationalism, ethnopluralism etc. The main distinction is between civic and ethnic nationalism, not moderate and ultra/extreme.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A book by a freelance researcher must generally be given lower weight than one by a tenured academic as there is less quality control of his/her research.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If the term is correct for the article in question then I fail to see how being more specific does not in turn make the article more accurate. Yes, I can see how in some circumstances other definitions such as ethnonationalism and ethnopluralism may be more accurate. However I think ultranationalism can also be an accurate and perfectly good term to use that can be either just as appropriate or more appropriate for some articles. I don't see why this term cannot also exist along with those you mention. Helper201 (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Myth" of National Rebirth?

Why is the possibility of National Rebirth considered a "myth"?

Firstly, this seems like a highly contentious and emotive term, presumably designed to reflect the author's personal feelings on the matter, rather than any kind of objective view.

Secondly, since it is ( - presumably - ) impossible to give a "hard-and-fast" definition of what "National Rebirth" actually IS, it seems rather silly to describe so nebulous a concept with such a concrete term as "myth". Not to mention presumptuous.

I'm therefore going to change "myth" to "notion". Colonel Muriel Clean (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeff6045's edits

Jeff,

please respect WP policies, such as WP:BRD among WP:NPOV. Fidesz definetly not an ultranationalist party, even if there some exaggerated sources on this, however this not not an uniform view with consensus, to say nothing of contradicts the reality. I informed Wikiproject Hungary on this case.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Jeff,

as you are a newbie editor, maybe you don't know thouroughly or polices and process, hence your argumentation in the edit log does not hold. Please read WP:BRD. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Jeff,

I am calm, it seems you are not, with you last edit you engaged yourself in a deliberate edit-warring contrary to the many warnings. Still you are not understanding WP:BRD properly and our policies, hence it needs a consequence at this point.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

• Stub-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles