![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been arguing with a couple of Persian nationalists who are sure that the Elamite empire was Iranian. I collected material that wasn't related to Iran, but did speak to a general problem. So I started an article. This could probably be considerably expanded. I'm still exploring the topic myself. Zora 09:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed the following discussion from the section where it was:
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)
I recently changed the Google Books reference to Geary, p. 15, because it didn't work properly. I suspect such links may not be permanent but may be tied to each individual search. That may be why Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines deprecates using links to specific pages.
Would someone check whether that link goes directly to p. 15; if it doesn't feel free to remove it. -- SteveMcCluskey 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dang, I simply didn't notice those. It's not me inventing this, I've seen this repeated elsewhere. Basically, we don't want to link to search results. They're not necessarily stable links. Zora 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Linking to Google Books is fine if you know what you're doing. See related discussion. Ekantik talk 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Really? What about England and Scotland. It seems that nationalism was alive an kicking long before the French thought of it.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Nationalization of history is not nationalistic history, but national history, that only in some cases can be nationalistic.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been arguing with a couple of Persian nationalists who are sure that the Elamite empire was Iranian. I collected material that wasn't related to Iran, but did speak to a general problem. So I started an article. This could probably be considerably expanded. I'm still exploring the topic myself. Zora 09:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed the following discussion from the section where it was:
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)
I recently changed the Google Books reference to Geary, p. 15, because it didn't work properly. I suspect such links may not be permanent but may be tied to each individual search. That may be why Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines deprecates using links to specific pages.
Would someone check whether that link goes directly to p. 15; if it doesn't feel free to remove it. -- SteveMcCluskey 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dang, I simply didn't notice those. It's not me inventing this, I've seen this repeated elsewhere. Basically, we don't want to link to search results. They're not necessarily stable links. Zora 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Linking to Google Books is fine if you know what you're doing. See related discussion. Ekantik talk 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Really? What about England and Scotland. It seems that nationalism was alive an kicking long before the French thought of it.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Nationalization of history is not nationalistic history, but national history, that only in some cases can be nationalistic.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)