Talk:Nationalist historiography

message: This article has problems and it makes claims about "Chinese, Persians, Russians" that are not backed up with anything. Reads like a bad term paper from an ultraradical leftist. It is just original research and either doesn't belong in the Wikipedia or needs to get rid of all the junk info that has nothing to back it up. ZamfirsGhost 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article and I don't think I'm a leftist. I'm definitely an anti-nationalist, but I tried to keep the article neutral. How about refraining from calling me names? I'll dig up more refs.  Zora 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone a "leftist" is not an insult. But I think you're right since examining your edit history you seem nothing like a liberal but the exact opposite, which I think is even worse. My mistake. I think you should read about what Wikipedia thinks about original research and this article is a fabulous example. If the article is anti-nationalist like you, then it's not neutral is it now? And if you are anti-nationalist I think you should leave Hawaii since whites don't belong there and in fact you should leave America, the most nationalist country on earth! And leave the rest of the world alone. ZamfirsGhost 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think I'm a leftist.  I'm definitely an anti-nationalist, but I tried to keep the article neutral.  The minor point is that anti-nationalism is a default common sense among progressives (I'm one, and I'm doing research into this at the moment).  The more substantial point is that your anti-nationalist disposition is very evident throughout the article.  You cite Geary a lot (for such a brief article) and there is also an implicit bias toward the modernists (Gellner, Hobsbawm, Anderson) and against the 'perennialists' (e.g. Smith).  I'd recommend a substantial re-write and will get onto this myself as soon as I find the time - it's a promising initial structure and I applaud your enterprise in getting this article off the ground! -RLM 7pm AEST, 21 September 2009
It's not original research; I cited many academics and even an academic conference. Please stop calling me names and insulting me. I'm not going to report you to an admin, in case you don't realize that you're doing wrong, but if you do this again, I will. You can be blocked from editing if you can't remain civil (WP:CIVIL) to other editors. Zora 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometime ago, after making some major changes, I removed the Original Research template. I have just removed the NPOV template.  If anyone still thinks this article is biased, please reopen the discussion. --SteveMcCluskey 15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: :Sometime ago, after making some major changes, I removed the Original Research template. I have just removed the NPOV template.  If anyone still thinks this article is biased, please reopen the discussion. --SteveMcCluskey 15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've added a lot of material based on Geary's recent book.  There's a lot more material out there that can be added.  I know there are discussions of the rise of Celtic and Slavic nationalism in the nineteenth century, and I presume there are discussions of nationalism in the many former colonial states of Africa and Asia.
Please help. --SteveMcCluskey 15:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could. Did you know that I have a cubic yard of books to be read sitting by my bed? That I have hundreds of books queued in my Questia account? That I have hundreds of books on my gimmee lists at Powells and Amazon? I think my head is going to explode. Zora 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do and Sources 

message: I've removed the following discussion from the section where it was:
:Europeans claiming as their origin Acient Greece (and marginalizing any non-Greek or non-Indo-European influences on Ancient Greece)Arvidsson 2006:50-52,
That section is concerned with cultures claiming ancestry in a vaguely defined mythological past; the passage derived from Arvidsson dealt with Europeans claiming descent from a well defined historical culture.  The issue of possible Asian and African influences on Greek culture is another matter, which perhaps could be written up to fit this discussion of nationalism. --SteveMcCluskey 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, this is completely offtopic. Europeans claiming Greek cultural roots can do so independently of what might be, in turn, the roots of Greek culture. Oriental and Egyptian influence on Greek culture are widely accepted, it is just usually implied that these elements were essentially refined, acquiring a new "European" quality, in Greece itself. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europeans claiming Greeks as their own 

message: :The eighteenth and nineteenth century saw the resurgence of national ideologies. During the French revolution a national identity was crafted, identifying the common people with the Gauls.
Really? What about England and Scotland. It seems that nationalism was alive an kicking long before the French thought of it.
:for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.(Declaration of Arbroath 1320)
:This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, (Shakespeare Richard II 1595)
--Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence you criticise does state 'resurgence'.  It is certainly the case that nationalism has been utilised as a political tool (a noble lie so to speak) long before the French revolution and in places far off from France but the very fact that you associated the political communities that produced these two documents with current geo-political entities show the extent of the historiographical problem. Rykalski (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  demi-paradise 

message: Is it perhaps worth mentioning recent afrocentric claims over Eygptian and Native American ancestry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.120.4 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afrocentrism 

message: "Nationalism was so much taken for granted as the "proper" way to organize states and view history that it was essentially invisible to historians until fairly recently (the 1980s or 1990s)."
I think that this sentence is not totally clear. It was not that nationalism was invisible, but it was nationalistic perspective in viewing and writing history works that was invisible to historians. Such nationalistic perspective in viewing and writing history works is often reffered to as nationalization of history. Therefore I am going to add this term to the above sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go a bit slower on this.  The term "nationalization of history" appears in Wikipedia in a new article, to which Antidiskriminator is the only significant contributor to date.  I wonder whether it would be wiser to introduce that new material into this article rather than continue to develop what looks suspiciously like a content fork.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was essentially invisible? 

message: I think that we need a cite for "nationalization of history was essentially invisible to historians," particularly given the social history movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that assertion based on the source that I need some time to remember and find.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Historiography and nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529161723/http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/delusions/antiquity.html to http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/delusions/antiquity.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529161723/http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/delusions/antiquity.html to http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/delusions/antiquity.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the current version of this article every listed country only has single sentence example that don't really discuss any individual nationalist historiography or how biased it is, only that a particular researcher has either wrote about it or planned to look at it. There is a wealth of information written about individual cases of nationalist historiography and a lot of it is already on the pages of country-specific historiography, so why only limit it to these odd single sentence examples? I was thinking about adding examples of Vietnamese nationalist historiography but I think that the subject is too broad, diverse, and multi-leveled (where Monarchists, Republicans, Colonialists, Anti-Colonialists, Liberals, Christian Supremacists, "Pure Land" nationalists, Sinophobes, Sinocentrists, Anti-Communists, and Communists all contributed their own versions and nationalistic interpretations of Vietnamese history). So just adding a single sentence would be a major disservice to the readers. Of course, if these single sentence examples are the rule then perhaps I should find a different space for "Vietnamese nationalist historiography". --Donald Trung (talk)  17:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. People write what they can. In this particular case user Piotrus decided it would be a good idea to set up an initial structure of the article. "By country" is a conventional arrangement for articles on general subjects which have specifics in particular countries. Anybody else may expand the article in any way. Nothing prevents you to write about Vietnam as much as you can. And of course, since it seems that you know much on the subject, you may write a separate article, Vietnamese historiography and point out nationalistic elements in it. After that (or before that) YOu can add a section here, keeping in mind the guideline 'WP:Summary style. I fail to see why I have to explain this to you; you are an editor since 2017. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single sentence example at the "By country" section 

message: I propose deleting the following in the "Origins" section:
Although the emergence of the nation into political consciousness is often placed in the nineteenth century, attempts by political leaders to craft new national identities, with their dynasty at the center, have been identified as early as the late Roman Empire.[citation needed] The Barbarian rulers of the successor states crafted these new identities on the basis of descent of the ruler from ancient noble families, a shared descent of a single people with common language, custom, and religious identity, and a definition in law of the rights and responsibilities of members of the new nation.
It's misleading to portray the Barbarian identity as equivalent to national identity. As multiple scholars of nationalism have stated, it's anachronistic to do so because unlike contemporary national identities, pre-modern ideas of common identity and descent only existed among political elites, not entire populations.
Fishing for opinions. Yr Enw (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Decided to reword instead Yr Enw (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion