Talk:Chauvinism

message: Although Chauvin was a real person.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  200.191.188.xxx (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 December 2001
:He was. I'll add some info. --Dmerrill
Who was he? Fellowscientist (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicolas Chauvin.  He appears to have been the Chuck Norris of 18th Century France. - Richfife (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chauvin

message: I modified slightly the section mentioning male chauvinism, which as written implied that the word chauvinism now generally means male chauvinism.  AFAIK the word still has its original political meanings; I hear it used often enough, and of course it's hyphenated umpteen different ways at the bottom there.  Male chauvinism may be its most frequent contemporary usage, but always as modified by the world male, never just as 'chauvinism.' 142.167.175.124 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: Someone authorized to, please remove the inappropriate comment (and probably joke site also) as they are pretty clearly against WP:TPG.  I'm not quite clear on the policy of deleting other people's comments on talk pages or I'd do it myself.  142.167.175.124 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I removed this twice so far:
:Women should avoid labeling their male partners as "chauvinist pigs" unless their male partners are truely derogatory towards women. The loose application of the term "chauvinist pig" may highly offend a non-chauvinist male and put the female in bad light. It may even cause the female appear to be an overbearing "feminist bitch".
This content is not encyclopedic. It reads as advice and isn't sourced. It doesn't help the reader understand the term any better. Any insult or pejoritive falls under this, so the information isn't unique either. This content needs to be refined and sourced if to have a chance at all in the article. Please explain these changes more here before editing further. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content, feminist b* 

message: Can we discuss this on talk? Saying "I've heard of it" is not a valid reliable source on wikipedia. Making a bold edit is fine, but if it gets reverted, the best thing to do is to talk it out and reach a compromise, not to get into an edit war. If your issue is with saying the term is only used by misandric researchers, then we can adjust that, but I take issue with saying "female chauvinism" is a "Frequent contemporary uses of the term in English" on the same level as "male chauvinism". A third issue is the "female chauvinism" section discusses another use of the term, in that it is a woman who "replicate male chauvinism and sexist stereotypes about women".-Andrew c [talk] 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew C. -- I appreciate your attempt to be diplomatic, but accusing me of starting an edit war seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.  You reverted my edit without either first discussing it on the talk page or attempting to find some sort of compromise -- exactly what you accuse me of doing.  I'm not trying to be stubborn, but as I've already explained, the sentence as it stood was misleading.  Minaker 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an edit to try and address my concerns. What do you think?-Andrew c [talk] 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got me rolling my eyes in exasperation over here.  For the record, I am not attempting to cite my own knowledge as a reliable source.  My point is that I am not a misandry researcher, nor are any of the people I've ever heard discussing the topic, and before you jump on me about this, I KNOW that that would be considered original research -- I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that the term is not known only to "a few misandry researchers" as this article previously stated; I found that statement misleading, and in a rather absurd manner.  Frankly, I think your most recent edit is much better than the article's previous diction, not because it's a compromise, but because it makes more sense than both the other version and my own edit.  So kudos about that, definitely.  By the way, regarding placement of new topics on talk pages (top versus bottom of the page)-- I have read directly conflicting rules on this (maybe people are editing rules pages with false information?), and by now I'm helplessly confused on this particular matter.  It doesn't help my confusion that I've noticed people switching back and forth.  Are you sure this is the rule, that new topics go on the bottom?  Not that it's a big deal, but I would like a definitive answer.  Minaker 11:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just backing up Andrew's statement - new conversations go on the bottom of the page.  See WP:TALK#Layout--Cailil  talk 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male vs. female 

message: ::I believe that female chauvinism is not explained properly. Just pointing fingers at ONE second wave feminist (Betty Friedan) sounds to me as biased and defamatory. There were many, and there's no valid explanation given for this. Either we remove her reference in the article or add more names of FCPs and explain why they were considered so. That would sound more encyclopedic. Fellowscientist (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I removed the following:
* Death Note A fictional story in which the protagonist is sexist to the extreme and manipulates several women. Also, the protagonist's girlfriend constantly summits to her beloved's will and dresses in a Lolita-style fashion. The antagonists are the ones who treat women more or less normally.
* Leslie's Journal A girl writes in her journal about her abusive boyfriend who sees girls as sex toys.  The boy in the story goes a far as killing one of the girls.
* A Doll's House The men in this story treat a woman as a plaything and her husband asks her to do tricks for money.  In the end, the husband tries to better himself, but is too late.
* Saving Francesca A girl joins a newly-coed school along with about a dozen or so other girls.
We need a reliable source to cite that makes the claim that these works either depict chauvinism or are chauvinistic. I am also not sure if we need a list of works like this because it could be quite extensive and not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). But let's work on sourcing this content first. -Andrew c [talk] 01:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: The "female chauvinism" section dwarfs the "male chauvinism" section, which seems odd and a case of undue weight.  Is there some interest in flushing the section out, or trimming the "female chauvinism" section?  Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the female section being too long as it is, so it seems like we should just expand the male section. I'll tag it as such. With regards to trimming, my only concern is if McElroy and Paglia actually use the term "chauvinism" or not in their criticism of "gender feminists". If not, it would be original research to place their criticism under the heading of "chauvinism". It appears Nathanson and Young do use the "ch-" word. -Andrew c [talk] 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  It's ludicrous that even that much has been written about a virtually unknown "phenomenon"--I've never even heard of the term "female chauvinist."  Certainly it's not common usage--it reads like a pro forma attempt to counterbalance "male chauvinism" which is of course much more common. 64.132.218.4 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's some lovely bias you have there, you misandric, chauvinistic pig-dog  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.134.225 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight. 

message: Hmmm... trying some dictionaries, I see:
:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/male+chauvinism
:http://dictionary.die.net/male%20chauvinism
Neither has anything equivalent for "female chauvinism".  I can find a few hits on '"female chauvinism" definition' (answers.com, etc.) but they all seem to be syndication of WP content... usually this very article. LotLE×talk 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you repeat your assertion that it is a neologism, without any source to support your claim.  I claim it is clearly not a neologism, having come into common and academic use around the same time "male chauvinism" did.  I therefore ask you again to stop referring to it as neologism, or provide sources claiming it is a neologism.  Otherwise, it is YOU who are engaging in original research.  You tagged the sentence: "Female chauvinism is a term used to describe the attitude that women are superior to men" first as "dubious," and now despite 500 books mentioning female chauvinism, you claim it WP:OR to acknowledge the phrase and how it's used?  Blackworm (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is about the word "neologism"... you may have noticed that I linked above to the perfectly lovely neologism "blogosphere."  I've also coined a fair number in my own writings (none that entered widespread usage yet, sadly :-)).  However, it does look like your link has some academic uses in the 1970s, which is earlier than I would have expected. Moreover, I'm convinced that the definition given in the article is not dubious, but I still feel in needs a citation (hence the current tag).  My WP:OR concern, and more importantly WP:UNDUE, isn't really about the definition alone, but rather about the overly long section devoted to it, that tries to pull together a variety of rather different uses and almost dominates the article (same sentiment you expressed on this page a couple months ago, actually). LotLE×talk 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [Edit conflict.] My point was only that it doesn't apply, not whether the description is good or bad.  I'm only concerned that someone may see the "citation needed" tag and remove the entire section believing it to be based on nothing.  That said, I'm satisfied that you don't seem to want that, and we pretty much agree on the weight.  Perhaps you could try editing the section to address your weight concerns?  Blackworm (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The word "neologism" has been wrongly used in my interactions with editors in the past to claim that a common phrase is not encyclopedic, or not notable.  Then, like now, the claim of a neologism was false.  Blackworm (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on generality of usage 

message: An editor posted the below addition.  I think it points at an important area for discussion that is worth including in this article.  However, as written it is a very impressionistic description of one (interesting, but not general) example of linguistic chauvinism.  Also, the tone and wording is very awkward and unencyclopedic.
I think that in its existing form, it does more harm than good to put on the article, but hopefully we can tighten it up and include some discussion of the concept of linguistic chauvinism. LotLE×talk 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chauvinism as language 

message: If jingoism is going to be given as a parallel for chauvinism, some attribution is required - most would argue that jingoism refers solely to ideas of nation, whilst chauvinism, whilst similar as an idea in origin, has come to have a broader application. OED definition cited, when I looked it up says - extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.122 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jingoism 

message: In middle of the last paragraph in the section "Chauvinism as sexism," there appears following:
"Female chauvinism was found to represent an attempt to ward off anxiety and shame arising from one or more of four prime sources: unresolved infantile strivings and regressive wishes, hostile envy of men, and power and dependency conflicts related to feminine self-esteem. Fathers were more important than mothers in the development of female chauvinism, and resolution was sometimes associated with decompensation in husbands."
This information is not cited, and appears to be a verbatim quote from research cited earlier in the article regarding male chauvinism, with only the gender in question switched. I highly doubt the veracity of these sentences; they seem fabricated. Could someone please either a) cite a source, or b) remove those sentences? I would remove it myself, but thought it best to ask for sources first...
Jthechemist (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that only men can show an attitude of gender superiority is gender bias. It does clearly illustrate, however, the one-sided nature of feminism, so I'm not sure we should go digging up citations from any book that talks about it. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female chauvinism, unverified information 

message: The information in this paragraph turns very negative when discussing so-called chauvinistic traditions in abrahamic religions. Disturbing blanket accusations for billions of people? While i understand that they may be true in some cases the exception is not the norm, even if the article claims or can be perceived as claiming that. Suggest removal or rewording at the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.76 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male chauvinism in the home 

message: For a general article on chauvinism, this has far too many specifics on "male chauvinism", "female chauvinism" and other types. This is confusing and distracting. The term has been in use for about 200 years. The vast majority of that time it was used without "male" or any other adjective. 
I first heard the word used in the 1960s, years before "male chauvinism" had entered the public's working vocabulary. It would be unfortunate to obscure the generality of the word by emphasizing any one type of chauvinism. Dratman (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is necessary. The section on male chauvinism is short, this article overall is not long, so I don't see why we should split them. While I agree the male chauvinism section does dominate the article a bit, that's merely because we don't go into the other types. I really think it's a bad idea to encourage every kind of chauvinism to have its own little article. It is probably much easier for these topics to be NPOV and verifiability compliant if they all sit in one place where many eyes view them (and many eyes with different POVs). The only reason we would have for splitting would be if a single article was getting too long (and even then only if it was too long because it was full of NPOV, verifiable information) but this article is no where near that point.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put details of "male chauvinism" and other specific types into one or more separate articles. 

message: Just a questions if this could or should be connected with the Machismo article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.234.4.80 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Linking or similarities with Machismo 

message: I think this should have its own article, and include citations for male chauvinist pig. the idea of men as pigs was a very common meme starting in the 60s. heres an image poking fun at it:
thumb|Carnaval des Femmes 2014 - P1260333
which might be nice in the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Male Chauvinism

message: I'm curious if there are any notable groups that historically self identified as male chauvinists or if it is exclusively used as a derogatory word against men.  Seems the article needs to make this clear.
:One of the tenents of the Proud Boys is "Venerating the Housewife."  I'd say that comes pretty close to "self identified as male chauvinists".  Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Identified male chauvinist groups? 

message: Removed as it is not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ISI.org has been around since 1953. It was created by William F Buckley Jr. who founded the National Review. Just because something is conservative does not make it unreliable. It even runs a school/program whose graduates include: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. If it is reliable, why? Deleting and stating unreliable without stating why is confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.207.101 (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PPE (ISI's school) studies are thriving today. More than 70 programs exist in America, with roots tracing back one hundred years ago to Oxford University in 1920 (BUT PPE HAS EXISTED SINCE 1953). IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE AND SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE THEIR POLITICS!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.207.101 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISI.org 

message: It appers that someone has edited the second sentence of the introduction rather clumsily, if anyone can figure out what should be there, please improve it. Darkman101 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs attention 

message: This article should contain a reference to the eponymous Nicolas Chauvin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Chauvin Dcprevere (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolas Chauvin 

message: The word "unreasonable" seems very biased. Why isn't for instance Misandry defined as "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men" instead of "unreasonable hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men"? 46.135.30.110 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See above section 'Irrationality of chauvinism'. I will try to simplify this for you, as you don't seem to get the above arguments. At the time, Chauvin was viewed by the French Right s being so extremely Ultra Far Right that he was insane. Utterly, completely, on all fours barking and trying to chase his own tail insane. Now, it is possible to be Right and be sane. It is possible to be Far Right and at least have some kind of plan rational according to its own logic, like exterminating the Jews because your plan is to create an internal enemy so as to make yourself leader of a new empire. But, it is not possible to be Ultra Far Right barking mad and be viewed as sane or in any way as rational, even by your Right and Far Right peers. Hence, in his own time, the French Right determined he was barking mad, as in "Woof woof, where's my tail gone?", and it has been part of the definition ever since. Is that now clear? Johncdraper (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Barking mad or not, you think Hitler was okay inside his head? No he wasn't. And even if he was, his ideas were also completly insane, eugenics, scientific racism, the whole making up of the aryan race, antisemitism etc. Yet, these beliefs are still not described as "unreasonable" on wikipedia. Your arguments don't make much sense. They don't change the fact that chauvinism is as of right now being labeled as unreasonable by wikipedia meanwhike things like antisemitism etc. are not. If you specify one idea as unreasonable and leave out the others, it's as if you're labeling them as reasonable, sane, understandable. 46.135.30.110 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no reason that our treatment of chauvinism needs to be the same as misandry, or Nazism, or any other prejudice, belief, or ideology. "Unreasonable" is part of the definition of chauvinism in a way that it is not a part of the definition of many other terms. A better comparison would be to something like cognitive distortion. Why do we describe cognitive distortion as irrational? Because it's part of the definition of the term. If the pride in one's nation weren't unreasonable, or if the thought pattern weren't irrational, we wouldn't rightly use the terms "chauvinism" or "cognitive distortion" to label them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

text: No, I don't. But tens of millions of Germans did think Hitler was a jolly fine leader. However, you are missing the point. You still don't understand that the definition of unreasonable is not ours, but theirs, i.e., those on the French Right and Far Right who defined 'chauvinism' at the time. Are you able to process that concept, i.e., the temporal baking in of the concept of chauvinism being barking woof woof mad at point of definition? If not, there is no hope for your understanding the definition of chauvinism. In that case, all I would ask you to do is to focus on the fact that Wikipedia is merely copying definitions from other authoratitive secondary sources, which do use 'irrational' or 'uncreasonable', and for for this reason alone, we just follow them, and in your case, I regret that apparently it will have to be blindly so. Johncdraper (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: To improve this page, this is an appeal for nominations, with citations, of a contemporary person espousing chauvinism, corrroborated by multiple independent secondary sources, preferably within the English-speaking world, i.e., with English language citations. The situation at present is that we have only one example, of my favourite British machievellian, Nigel Farrage, who has stated for the record that he has championed chauvinism, for which we have multiple independent reliable sources. However, that example is in dispute. I look forwards to seeing more nominations. Johncdraper (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason whatsoever why this article needs to include such 'examples'. You have already amply demonstrated why this is problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On that basis, I wouuld be removing the Hitler example from the Fascism page. I would urge you to take improving the Chauvinism page more seriously. I also note you still have not explained, with reference to anything, why you would like the Farrage example removed, except for the faint hint that you dislike him - not a reason to remove anyone from Wikipedia. Johncdraper (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're unlikely to find many reliable sources about fascism that don't mention Hitler. This article should only mention "examples" when sources about chauvinism regularly include said example. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried scanning articles on chauvinism for examples. However, there are few recent ones, meaning few recent, i.e., post-WWII examples. Most do not concern chauvinism per se put welfare chauvinism. Johncdraper (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Given the above refusal to accept a clear consensus against this blatant political soapboxing, I've now started a thread at WP:ANI.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Firsty, 2-3 opinions is not a consensus. Secondly, how is this political soapboxing? Which side of the political spectrum am I supporting? Neither of them. Thirdly, I am not edit-warring you. I am opening up the field to find other examples. As for WP:ANI, I have been there before. Johncdraper (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Five experienced editors disagreed with you about inclusion. No editors agreed with you about inclusion. That's consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I only counted three, max. Would you please just list them here? Johncdraper (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Firetangledfeathers, me, Hemiauchenia, AndyTheGrump, and Caeciliusinhorto-public. Also Cat or other and 82.37.67.100, which makes six/seven, my counting error. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  + more at BLPN and ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's what I call a consensus. Consequently, I've moved on to finding at least one example of 20th century chauvinism. This has now been done. However, there continues to be misunderstanding over the nature of sources. So, for instance, there is no 'Handbook of Chauvinism' in the same way that there are handbooks and encyclopedias of nationalism. That is because the study of nationalist chauvinism is very much a subfield. That is also what I have been banging my head against, especially when looking for late 20th and early 21st century examples. Ho hum. Johncdraper (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It should be noted than now the original source for the Farage quote has been located (Farage's book Flying Free, see ) it is abundantly clear that Farage wasn't 'espousing chauvinism' at all. And from the context, almost certainly referring to 'male chauvinism' rather than nationalism. The quote was being misused in a grossly inappropriate manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I believe that Nigel Farage, a seasoned politician, knows the difference between the two. Moreoever, I did do my best to make clear that Farage can espouse chauvinism without necessarily presently supporting it, which I believe was his intention. Johncdraper (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck what you believe. We don't base article content on the supposed mind-reading abilities of random contributors intent on using Wikipedia to promote their own politics. The consensus against inclusion of this political soapboxing is utterly overwhelming (absolutely nobody has agreed with you), and your continued attempt to argue the point is disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for an Example of a Person Espousing Chauvinism 

message: I wrote up a whole paragraph connecting in the chauvinism exemplified by Ernst Lissauer, Gott strafe England, and in contrast the difficulties that most German Jews had with the Kriegserlebnis, and then my computer crashed.  ☹  Anyway, it can be done.  Sources were Hans-Peter Bayerdörfer, Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, and a couple of others. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm looking for. Is there any chance that I could beseech you to make another attempt, backed uo to the cloud this time? Just to be clear, what would be needed is references that focus on the phenomenon of chauvinism + Ernst Lissauer and Gott strafe England or references that focus on Ernst Lissauer and Gott strafe England plus chauvinism. Pretty please? Johncdraper (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

text: My condolences, UG. I join in the beseeching. Since Chauvin himself is potentially apocryphal, an additional historical example would be a boon to the reader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there sources discussing Lissauer as an example of chauvinism, rather than merely describing him as a chauvinist? I think we need the former, to avoid at least skirting WP:OR. This is clearly less problematic than doing so  with a living 'example', but should probably be avoided all the same, since it is all too easy to allow one's own political prejudices when looking for specific 'examples'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added one explicit academic mention of Lissauer and/or his works as being chaivinistic. However, I know your position is that this is not sufficient, so would you please give me an apprx no. of how nany such sources you would like to see? My own minimum of academic sources, which I ended up using for Farrage, is three. However, I also accept the need for not just breadth of sources but depth, so once I have added them, I would ask you to review them for being sufficiently authoritative. Johncdraper (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am asking for is sources discussing chauvinism that name Lissauer as an example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I can't find any of those. That's because there are no recent sources on German chauvinism. The main reason is because pure chauvinism is a sub-branch of nationalism. Moreoever, academics have, for the large part, moved on from pure chauvinism to male chauvinism, ethnic chauvinism, national chauvinism (Polish, mainly), welfare chauvinism, and so on. I can find multiple sources on the interface of WWI-era Jewish identity and German nationalism, referring to Lissauer's chauvinism - and the self-professed German chauvinism of the time - see Rathenauer's statement, which I have now included. It is apparently the standard example for that period and appears in much of the analysis of the Jewish-German history of the period. However, is that enough for you? Johncdraper (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather wait to see what other people have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History