Talk:Civic nationalism

Canada

Please any comments or disccusion would be appreciated.

You know the most famous civic nationalist here in Canada was Pierre Trudeau, the leader of our liberal party. He was actually the first one who argued for civil nationalism, that the only nationlism we should feel is pride in defending human rights as he felt the English and French Canadians unending squabbles were unfruitful for the nation. He came up with the famous phrase "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". lol. For the record Canda takes in more refugees than any country in the world and rather than assimilation we favor celebration of individual culture, so I guess we probably are the world's strongest proponent of civic nationalism

Page name

"Liberal nationalism" is more common than "civic nationalism". Page should be moved. Ostap 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Never heard about liberal nationalism before this article and assuming liberal nationalism is another name with same definition as civic nationalism, I would never assume it was the same thing if I saw the name. Also google trends (https://trends.google.com.br/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22civic%20nationalism%22,%22liberal%20nationalism%22) put "civic nationalism" above "liberal nationalism"201.79.59.127 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Liberal nationalism" is an ideology that is used academically. Since there is no evidence that liberal nationalism rejects ethnic identity, "civic nationalism" and "liberal nationalism" are completely separate ideologies. ProKMT (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Typologies of nationalism carry with them a lot of problems, as sometimes scholars assume terms are synonymous, sometimes terms are counterposed. I think you were aware of the problems with the Cultural nationalism page for some time because of this very thing. It’s difficult, as we need to follow what scholars use, but there is an inevitable degree of OR involved in these editorial decisions. To this specific point, though, I’m sure I’ve seen many papers using “civic” and “liberal” interchangeably. But perhaps a lit review is in order if others feel strongly about dividing the two. Yr Enw (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As-of-yet undiscussed page merge

I disagree with the merge proposal, that was given without reason, due to the fact that this article refers to a specific phenomenon within nationalism. The fact one of the books cited on this article is called 'Liberal nationalism' testifies to the existence of the genre. Munci (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Munci. There's enough material to support separate articles on the different forms of nationalism - cultural, ethnic, liberal and all the rest.--Pondle (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, there are many different types of nationalism, Wikipedia doesn't reflect this very well at the moment and needs articles detailing the different types. --Joowwww (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge The only basis for the article is a book the argues that nationalism can be reconciled with liberal principles, holding promise for reconciliation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[1] Definitely a hook for original research as editors will list every political movement that could possibly be described as liberal and nationalist. It is further confusing because nationalism was originally liberal (although not in the sense used in the book) Liberal Nationalism. In case the merger proposal fails, I suggest changing the title to Liberal Nationalism (book). TFD (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think that Civic nationalism would be a better title for this article - I remember having to write an essay on the differences between 'civic' and 'ethnic' forms of nationalism. Basically, the thesis is that civic nations have ideological (as opposed to ethnic) origins and often celebrate this in their public culture: hence civic national-ism. There are sources out there, these ideas have been discussed by (amongst others) Anthony D. Smith who is well-known within the field.--Pondle (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that civic nationalism (which re-directs here) is sometimes called liberal nationalism, so that would be a good reason to re-name the article. However, glancing through the literature, it seems that civic nationalism is normally contrasted with ethnic nationalism, which is a good reason for combining the two in one article (e.g., under nationalism). Any thoughts? TFD (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there is a summary discussion of both civic and ethnic nationalism at the main article.--Pondle (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just change it. Period. end of story. K, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.214.136 (talk • contribs)

• Strongly oppose. I would strongly oppose any measure to merge the two. Clearly, they are very different ideologies, clearly demarcated in both the literature and the current political sphere in almost all countries. There is not just a single book, but quite a large body of literature and academic work on the subject. Bastin 13:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Clearly demarcated"? Could you point out which of your sources does that. It seems that the term means something different in every source. TFD (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to discuss liberal nationalism on its own right. Cogiati (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why merge it with nationalism instead of liberalism. Do not merge, it is not the same thing. Just like national conservatism and conservative liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.162.217 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. -- There are dramatic differences between civic / liberal natinalism and ethnic nationalism. Rename to civic nationalism. Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats

• Is there a good reason why the English Democrats have been excluded from the Liberal Nationalism Page, if not then please can they be added? - angon450*

The English Democrats Party is probably not seen as liberal. TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who does not see the English Democrat Party as liberal, and what would be the reason for that? (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No one describes them as liberal and furthermore even if they did, you would a need a source that calls them "liberal nationalists", not just that they have been called liberal and nationalist. TFD (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please confirm whether this page saying that the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are liberal nationlists? (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not put them in and do not need to defend their inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good reason as to why the addition of the English Democratic Party was removed from this page? (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2010

If is because I did not provide a source then here is a list to candidates: http://www.voteenglish.org/english-democrats-candidates/, just click on the link and you can see the candidates. (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010

Please excuse my error, I typed 'English Democratic Party' above, I meant to say 'English Democrat Party' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angon450 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 October 2010

You need a source that calls them "liberal nationalists". TFD (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do find it perculiar that neither Plaid Cymru or SNP require an article describing them as 'Liberal Nationalists', whereas the English Democrat Party do require an article. I have supplied a link which demonstrates that the English Democrats have candidates who are from Malaysia, India (a Sikh), Ed Abrams, who is Jewish to name just three. The EDP have candidates from more diverse ethnic origins than the SNP. As regards to policies, they are also similar to the SNP (with the exception of being Euro-Sceptic), which is neither here nor there when it comes to being Liberal, so that should not be an issue. The EDP as actually less hard line than the SNP when it comes to breaking up the UK. SNP are campaigning for independance, whereas the EDP just want a reform of the Barnett Formula. If this is not enough to include the EDP on this web site I will have to assume that there is some sinister reason to exclude them from this page. A second reason is that maybe current contributers are not sure about political idealogy. I see that the BNP are described as being 'far-right'. The BNP are National Socialists, and actually borrow more from left wing policy than right wing policy, but that is another debate and not one I am particularly interested in getting involved in. Angon450 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)(talk) 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Angon450 (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To The Four Deuces, what is stopping me removing the last paragraph from this article since there are no sources saing that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are "liberal nationalists"? (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. TFD (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to make changes without coming to a sensible agreement, I simply read this page and spotted some inconsistancy. From what I see the EDP is the English equivalent to SNP and Plaid Cymru. I doubt there is any web page describing the EDP as being liberal nationalists, but then I doubt there are pages describing SNP and Plaid Cymru as liberal nationalists either, and to be frank I cannot really be bothered to look. The best way would be to read their political manifestos. Angon450 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angon450 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion in any way related to the proposed merge? If not, it should be split off into a separate section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gordon, how are discussions 'split off'? -- User:Angon450 (talk) 13:25:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition of English Democrats to this Page

Can someone give me a good reason why Plaid Cymru and the SNP are on this page but the English Democrats have not been included? If the English Democrats have simply been missed out then that I can add a short sentence including them Angon450 (talk)

I wouldn't consider the English Democracts to be liberal nationalists. More like right-wing nationalists. --Joowwww (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please rfead the section above where this has already been explained to Angon450. TFD (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is your opinion more valuable then others then Joowwww? why would you describe the English Democrats as right-wing nationalists?'Angon450

@The Four Deuces, you explained nothing Angon450

Question, why is the SNP and Plaid Cymru described as being 'Liberal Nationalists' but the English Democrats aren't. Sensible answers only please Angon450 —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

The EDs are not included because there are no reliable sources to support its inclusion. I do not know why the SNP and PC are listed. TFD (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case wouldn't it be sensible and fair to treat all political parties fairly and scrutinise them in the same way? If there are no reliable sources supporting the inclusion of the SNP, or PC as being 'Liberal Democrats' then surely they should not be included in this article, do you agree or disagree?Angon450 —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

If no one can present any evidence that the SNP and PC are 'Liberal Nationalists' by 14/11/2010 I will remove them from this section [Angon450 16:00, 10 November 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angon450 (talk • contribs)

Obvious misconception

This is an article about "civic nationalism" - simply meaning to unite all ethnics under one nation. And most of these examples given here are the political wing of separatist/terrorist organizations (IRA, ETA, Flemish, ...), which strictly oppose this concept. Absurd. -- 188.22.174.54 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve two such references.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So guys, is there a difference between Patriotism versus Liberal Nationalism? Because I can't see any! Steliokardam (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"a non-xenophobic form of nationalism"

This entire phrasing, "...identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights..." is both overly generalizing and speculative in its reasoning for why such nations exist or came to exist, and unnecessarily prejudicial. Xenophobe isn't exactly a neutral term.

I'd also like to point out that just because you can link to a source doesn't make something true. It's not some magical function that suddenly turns an obviously subjective opinion into fact. The best you could say is, "X believes Y," and those kinds of statements are typically never relevant. They're usually just a vehicle for people to inject opinion into an article and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.96.81 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, with both points. The whole article is very OR-ish, and in danger of POVing from time to time. Pure speculation on my part (so ignore if you wish), but I can't help feeling that some of the motivation behind this article is coming from some supporters of national political parties wishing to add weight to their arguments that they are not the nasty (xenophobic) kind of nationalism, but rather the enlightened, cuddly modern kind. Having a nice Wikipedia article to refer to makes such political maneuvers just that much easier. Im sure that's not the *only* motivation, and I may even be completely wrong in my suspicion. Regardless, a liberal ( or civic :-) ) sprinkling of *robust* supporting references would go a long way to improving the thing. 62.245.143.18 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

UKIP as "civic nationalist" party

I would like to know why someone is constantly removing UKIP from inclusion in the civic nationalism page. It is quite clear that the party are such, being an all inclusive party of all peoples. Perhaps I ought to author a whole paragraph and photo to illustrate..... It is also quite clear there are certain areas of politics which would like such "truths" be suppressed least they conflict with their own "interests".... such behavior does not belong on a facts page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.49.85 (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you find a source that says that? UKIP doesn't seem inclusive, especially of immigrants and Muslims. Civic nationalism is about equality.VR _talk 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a reliable source to substantiate such claims. There are sources that suggest otherwise, such as a 2013 New Statesman analysis and a 2013 LSE blog. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And the source by Tournier-Sol merely notes that UKIP claims to be Civic Nationalist, not that it actually might be so. That may belong on the page about UKIP, but not here. Cause this article's about Civic Nationalism, and the only way to have UKIP here is if its actually described as Civic Nationalist by a reliable source. This article's not the place to talk about the disconnect between UKIP's various ideologies.VR _talk 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the Tournier-Sol source is not adequate to support UKIP being included here- within a 16 page discussion of UKIP there is only a single mention of the phrase and it does not explore the claim. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And articles from 2016 in the Washington Post and in NY Times also observe the far-right nature of the activities of this party. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Drchriswilliams news articles are not acceptable sources, don't need fake news here bud. See discussion on UK_Independence_Party. UKIP is a civic nationalist political party by aspiration and manifesto. If you can prove on the aforementioned page that UKIP are not a moderate form of British nationalism(see shining example of civic nationalism) and hence remove the reference there, you will find consensus to remove the reference here. Until then the removal is tantamount to vandalism of content. Could I suggest a more moderate approach to simply leave UKIP on the list where it should be and you can add a section contesting that UKIP are not supportive of moderate British nationalism and supply citation of respectable sources? FYI - I've emailed admins for oversight, please remember to thank them for their precious time. Dougal83 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dougal83: Have a look at WP:NEWSORG to improve your understanding of WIkipedia's use of sources where there is a reputation for fact-checking. Multiple reliable sources suggest that UKIP are a right-wing party that acts in a manner that is not in keeping with civic nationalism. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams:Stop embarrassing yourself. You clearly have a political motive to hide the fact that UKIP are a civil nationalist party. Using opinion articles from the news, which by no means are impartial, does not support your agenda. For example, I could take a camera right now to an SNP hotbed and find people who make comments on my nationality due to my English accent, vice versa my father(Scottish accent) could go to a UKIP hotbed and not one word of nationality would be uttered. You have the incredulity to contest UKIP's credentials as a civil nationalist party. I can remind you that there are journals on the SNP's past as ethno nationalist, do you see me acting like a petulant child on the matter? Be a bit more British please, we all live here as equals, be inclusive of all citizens.

See SNP discussion in section that follows immediately. Proposal that both UKIP and SNP belong on page. Dougal83 (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We have a reliable source(Tournier-Sol) that supports UKIP specifically as civic nationalist. We also have a source stating that both the SNP and UKIP are "two sides of the same coin" with regard to their civic nationalist credentials. It is also clear that UKIP is a moderate form of British Nationalism(civic nationalism). There is no intention to accept UKIP for what it is due unfounded prejudice found here. The objective appears to be to keep UKIP from the page without discussion. I'm going to reinsert the content as no discussion is forthcoming as to why UKIP doesn't meet any definition of civic nationalism. Please raise a dispute or actually put forward reasoning as to why UKIP don't meet the wide scope civic nationalism. With reference to the UKIP manifesto 2015, could you please highlight your reason to believe that UKIP are not civic nationalists? I don't accept the number of sources as a valid metric and neither should you. Dougal83 (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, there should be a depth of coverage demonstrated to include a party and this has not been done with regard to UKIP. The Tournoir-Sol has a passing mention (a single mention in a 9,000-word article and sourced to a single UKIP general election manifesto from 2010). You are misquoting the "Two sides of the same coin" phrase which makes no specific mention of civic nationalism. As I mentioned in the SNP section you started below, that source only uses civic nationalism when referring to the SNP. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, please prove UKIP is not a civic nationalist party. This should be extremely easy for you. Please take the UKIP manifesto and simply prove me wrong by highlighting the points that conflict with the definitions of civic nationalism. By all means propose alternate phrasing to use when referencing UKIP on the page. As to why the party being a civic nationalist party is contested, it should require some academic exercise more taxing that counting references. I just don't see anything in the manifesto that is a conflict. Dougal83 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the information should be verifiable before it is added, as per WP:VER and be based upon WP:RELIABLE sources. The problem with trying to use a manifesto is that is a self-published list of promises. As far as I can see, out of 558 candidates that UKIP put forward in the 2010 election, none were elected. In their 2015 manifesto, UKIP do not claim to be civic nationalists- at that election they put forward 624 candidates and one was returned. In the case of a party that does not get a significant number of candidates elected, they will not be able to put parts their manifesto into action. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It has two sources. You haven't provided a convincing argument other than counting. Have another http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/41401/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-Moving_from_a_racebased_agenda_to_a_focus_on_civic_virtue_has_aided_the_BNPs_resurgence_in_the_last_d.pdf (p.2). On how BNP tried to copy UKIP to become respectable. I'm sure you can find more if you wanted to...Dougal83 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming amount of external sources point to UKIP clearly not being civic nationalist. Civic nationalists do not campaign for, as one of their main concerns, the exclusion of refugees and immigrants from their nation. It's all very well claiming to be civic nationalists, but you aren't if the evidence doesn't back it up. UaineSean (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OTOH, calling for less immigration or an immigration in the future is different from excluding immigrants or refugees who are already there from your nation. If Ronald Raygun was calling for 5,000 immigrants during an election year and George McGovernator was calling for 10,000, would only McGovernator be the civic nationalist?108.41.148.51 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry UaineSean, but immigration/border control is not within the scope of civic nationalism. You should probably go tell the admins @ reddit.com/r/ukipparty that they are wrong too. Even UKIP voters aren't as enlightened as you. I should probably add that as a source, it is just as credible as a 'newspaper'. Even if you flood academia with papers that bananas taste like strawberries, it doesn't make it true.. especially if you actually consume the fruit in question. Go talk to UKIP voters, show me I'm wrong. Dougal83 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So, have any of the bigots removing UKIP from the page actually addressed the elephant in the room that UKIP by it's very name is a civic nationalist party? A party that includes all citizens under common law regardless of nationality. There are four nations in the UK, all of their citizens are equal. UKIP would control immigration and everyone here legally is treated the same. On the other hand, the SNP for example advocate for unlimited immigration from the EU but would treat people from the rest of the world differently? Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives are civ. nats too. All this petty nonsense by cyber nats makes them look bad and it is harming wikipedia. Dougal83 (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

References

SNP as a civic nationalist party

Is the SNP even a nationalist party let alone civic nationalist? A nationalist party would not wish to transfer sovereignty to an external body such as the EU, this is in contrast to UKIP who wish to return sovereignty to the people of the UK. Furthermore UKIP are demonstrably more civil nationalist by encompassing four nations into a British identity within the UK territory(including all resident peoples), yet UKIP being included on this page is questioned by political motivated individuals.

I move that if UKIP are excluded then the SNP has no grounds to be on this page. Please discuss the merits of SNPs inclusion, pending possible removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougal83 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. You would be lucky to find a source to substansiate that but I see where you're coming from. I will look into this deeper. Jay-dogg (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is fairly easy to find discussion of how the SNP have embraced civic nationalism over the years, such as: Scottish Review March 2017, Edinburgh Uni blog May 2015, New Statesman March 2017,LSE blog September 2014, Guardian September 2014, National Collective August 2012 Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed SNP while we're discussing, I'm very alarmed that is the way we do things on Wikipedia! (but I'll follow the example set by VineRegent).

@Drchriswilliams The 2nd link titled "A dirty word..." did not work for me but it's likely that and it seems all your links do not grasp the nettle of sovereignty. It may be a bit too radical for you at first but if you think about it, it's interesting. SNP are not a good fit for any kind of nationalism while they seek to remain within the EU. Once Brexit has occured, any campaigning for belonging to the EU is running counter to definition of nationalism, which seeks to give sovereignty to the people within the demos. If you're not familiar with the EU, the structure can be characterised as pooled sovereignty with external political structures outside the nation. It's a curious case of treason if you look at it with a certain point of view. Do you have any thoughts on how SNP is actually nationalist while contradicting the definition? Please provide sources relevant to sovereignty as it is the issue at hand. Jay-dogg (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

CBA to format if I'm going to be penalised for being reasonable. Found this: "Britain’s Nationalist Moment: The Claims-Making of the SNP and UKIP" p11-12 (https://dc-10751-711240033.eu-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2015/Dye%20PSA%202015_Nationalist%20Moment.pdf) Pretty much my original opinion that both SNP and UKIP have a place claiming to be civic nationalist. There is a wide scope for the definition of civic nationalism, both parties deserve to be on the page perhaps with the language stating they(the party) both aspire to a flavour of civic nationalism. As the aforementioned paper puts it "the SNP and UKIP both fit the definition because there claims are two sides of the same coin". Can we put both SNP and UKIP back in place and highlight the differences rather than removing them entirely? If you have an axe to grind on UKIP please discuss rather than arbitrarily remove on a whim. I would edit the page but it's disruptive apparently. Guess I'll go read animal farm again in the meantime. Dougal83 (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dye paper is interesting as it presents itself as a review of literature that was prepared to be presented to the Political Studies Association conference in England in 2015 (so that process does not include formal peer-review). Page 3 mentions that books by Keating and Lynch pick up on the SNP and civic nationalism. Pages 11-12 of the Dye paper are part of a section which considers the claims and language used by the SNP and UKIP. It specifically refers to the SNP using the civic definition of nationalism but the author does not link this term to UKIP. The author does later conclude that UKIP fits the definition of a nationalist party. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams Could you point out on civic nationalism how "the SNP and UKIP both fit the definition because there claims are two sides of the same coin" is not true. We have a source, that states that UKIP is civil nationalist(the one you delete), which is the requirement of wikipedia. With the source requirement met, you need to validate your claim that UKIP are not civic nationalists. Please list reasons/sources for examination that prove that UKIP (the party) are not meeting any definitions for what the term civil nationalism stands. Given the definition of "Civic nationalism" is contested it's a tall order. Also UKIP is obviously a British nationalist party in a moderate form, could you counter this observation? Please try to be fair and avoid a conflict of interest with the national parties within the union.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougal83 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

SNP was removed as discussion is taking place on this subject. Jay-dogg (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason to remove the content about the SNP, even with a discussion having been started, and I have reverted its removal. It is clearly supported by appropriate sources, and there are many further sources that are easily accessed that explore the connection between the SNP and civic nationalism (for example some of those that I have listed earlier on in this thread). The SNP has been an accepted part of this article for several years. It is not helpful to try and conflate the positions of the SNP and UKIP with regard to this article. The "two sides of the same coin" quote from Dye does not appear to refer to civic nationalism. The Tournier-Sol source for UKIP only contains a passing mention of civic nationalism. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

To clarify around why the situation with UKIP being removed from this article was different. A link to UKIP was recently added to this article without any sourcing, there were not any obvious sources to support its inclusion but there were various sources that cast doubt over any claims that UKIP were a party that were considered by others to act in a way that was consistent with civic nationalism. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

To say that UKIP has no sources for being a civic national party is untrue. We have one reliable source(Tournier-Sol) that supports UKIP specifically as civic nationalist. It is worth mentioning that there are very few sources that state water is wet also. We also have a source stating that both the SNP and UKIP are "two sides of the same coin" with regard to their civic nationalist credentials. With that said I accept that the SNP have transitioned from ethno nationalists to civic nationalists. Dougal83 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

false dichotomies

The "contrast with ethnic nationalism" section is full of problematic false dichotomies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:887:F7C0:5CD2:F0F1:779D:14E1 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Civic Nationalist V Civic Unionist - " and others' arguments " - being conducted about " Civ " in Northern Ireland UK - ( circa 2018-19 ? )

I resorted to this page to see whether it had any information about these Open Letters being published in Northern and Southern Ireland re " Civ " - ?

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/02/27/are-the-terms-civic-unionists-and-nationalists-an-oxymoron/

" … Is it an oxymoron to attach the word “civic” to either unionist or nationalist? Is the benign label “civic” in front of them designed only to conceal partisanship behind a cloak of objectivity? Hopefully not. They are familiar signifiers rather than labels of allegiance; otherwise “civil society” would be limited to our few assorted socialists, Greens, Alliance party supporters, the professionally and personally unaligned and the genuinely uninterested. If “civic” still has meaning, it indicates a commitment to think freely beyond an acknowledged background in the interests of “the citizen.” … "

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/02/27/where-reconciliation-is-a-selective-process-healing-a-pernicious-and-destabilising-past-remains-as-a-challenge-to-us-all/

[ WHICH GIVES THE TEXT OF ONE OF THESE OPEN LETTERS - " CIVIC UNIONIST " ]

“We the undersigned desire a transparent and inclusive debate concerning rights, truth, equality and civil liberties and in so doing challenge assumptions that such values are not embedded within civic unionism, pluralism and other identities.

We are motivated by the desire to build a society for the betterment of everyone. This cannot happen when such a commitment is perceived as being vested in one community or political persuasion. We find it frustrating and puzzling that civic unionism, pluralists and other forms of civic leadership have been rendered invisible in many debates focused on rights and responsibilities. It has reduced our capacity to be heard and undermines the power of reconciliation to shift society away from stale and limiting notions of identity.

We have worked for peace and reconciliation and in so doing have had open and transparent engagement with civic nationalism. That has included recognition of the need for equality and most importantly the urgent need for polarised communities in Northern Ireland to reconcile and deal with barriers to a better future.

To achieve this requires the recognition that withholding truth presents as such. This is not unique to any institution or section within our society but where it is a selective process, healing a pernicious and destabilising past remains as a challenge to us all.

Civic unionism, and other identities are not resistant to claims of equality and full citizenship. These identities are central to the development of an authentically fair and tolerant society.

We wish to unite, not divide, and in encouraging transparency we call upon civic nationalism and others to engage with us in frank and fulsome debates about the many values and beliefs that are commonly shared and are vital to transforming the issues that we face."

WHICH WAS FROM = https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/civic-unionism-group-issues-riposte-to-civic-nationalism-1.3406055

… 03.00 am - I place this note here for you because I am going to put this on the back burner because of my lack of time and texts.DaiSaw (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Zionism and the Roads Not Taken 1880-1948

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 February 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sourpatchkid10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: That guy5947.

— Assignment last updated by Bane117 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

User:Yr Enw revert edits on the basis of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. His biggest personal problem with civic nationalism, that it just simply "stole the [ideological] show" of the cradle modern democracy from the much younger (and until the late 20th century) very marginal political philosophy of Cosmopolitanism/internationalism.--Pharaph (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Where have I posted that my "problem with civic nationalism, that it just simply "stole the [ideological] show" of the cradle modern democracy from the much younger (and until the late 20th century) very marginal political philosophy of Cosmopolitanism/internationalism" ?

Your accusation is barely comprehendible and neither is it Wikipedia:Edit warring. On this page I have made one partial revert, which was material you posted that just repeated information that was already in the article. Yr Enw (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Umut Özkirimli states, 'civic' nations can be as intolerant and cruel as the so-called 'ethnic' nations, citing French Jacobin techniques of persecution that were utilized by twentieth-century fascists.[6]"

Your addition must be remove, being unmeaning, due to the fact that civic nationalism has nothing to do with nazism. Nazism was ethnocentric and racist, which is the opposite of civic nationalism. 10:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC) There is no URL neither exact number of the page, thus it is a suspicious reference. --Pharaph (talk)

This is Wikipedia. If you have scholarly research that disputes Özkirimli's claim, or the claim in general, then add to the article in the appropriate place. I haven't made any arguments about Nazism. And, for what it is worth, I don't think Özkirimli is saying that the Nazis were civic nationalists. He disputes the notion that "civic" nations are less cruel or intolerant than "ethnic" ones and used the Jacobin example. That is all. If you want to bring doubt into the citation itself, fine, I will add the page number Yr Enw (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Page number and URL too. However the existence of the book, is not a guarantee for credibility, or it does not mean it is even important. Your claims are meaningless, because every political system can be cruel, even liberal democracies (which often express their cosmopolitanism) wage war for economic and geopolitical interests.--Pharaph (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that demands URLs should be in citations. If you want to add one, find the book and do so, I already put the page number in, that should suffice.

Like I said, if you want to dispute what Özkirimli says, then by all means cite some criticism. But we do not edit wikipedia based on personal opinion. I added the quote because it was directly relevant to the sentence before it about the literature distinguishing between the civic and ethnic taxonomy. Back and forth about your own views on the quote aren't going to improve the article.

Perhaps I am not the one engaging in Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Yr Enw (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Without URL, how can you prove that the reference contains your claims? Or how can the skeptic people knew, that the citation is not a fantasy, and it really contains exactly what you have claimed? How can we be sure, that the info is exactly the same, and not only just your own highly subjective interpretation of the text?--Pharaph (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is getting really petty now. There are thousands of Wikipedia citations without URLs. There is no Wiki policy that says they need to be included. That doesn't make them bad citations.

You want to check the source, then use the information that is there. If a URL was available, it would likely be copyrighted material anyway.

Unless you've got something to advance the discussion, I don't see a point continuing with this nitpicking. Yr Enw (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think, your reference does not support your claims/fantasy, that's exactly why you selected and inserted a book without URL to prove its real content. Even if it is true (I doubt that), there is no reason to be in this article, especially in the lead of the article. It is illogical and meaningless. Why? Because every ideology nad political systems (including hardcore liberal "cosmopolitan" or the communist internationalists) committed war crimes against certain groups of people/countries due to economic/geopolitical interests. It is not an exclusive feature of civic nationalism. And to make any stressed analogy between nazism and liberal nationalism is false, since the nazis were dedicated enemies of civic nationalism. Learn: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_American_Immigrat/wUupDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hitler+%22civic+nationalism%22&pg=PT196&printsec=frontcover

As you can see, I never give untraceable and unprovable references without URLs!--Pharaph (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)