Talk:German nationalism

It claims
I think the statement in the lead that German nationalism "claims that Germans are the ethnic, cultural, and linguistic descendants of ancient tribal Germanic people" is problematic. I doubt that all forms of German nationalism claim this. I would like to be sure that Kellas claims this to be a defining characteristic of all forms of German nationalism, and I would like to be sure that Kellas view is the fully representative so that it can be presented in the voice of wikipedia as "it claims" instead of "Kellas argues".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you propose the intro say instead?--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on what the source says, and what other sources say is the defining characteristics of German Nationalism. Unless all sources agree that the ideology of Teutonic origins is essential to all German nationalisms then it probably shouldn't be in the lead. If Kellas is talking about a particular stage of German nationalism (which I think he probably is) - for example the 19th century one - then the claim should be situated in the relevant section and not presented as a general claim, but attributed to him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it for now, unless more sources can be found to verify it.--R-41 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps give the quote by Kellas in its context? That would be easier to evaluate. You can also leave it in in which case I'll just have to track down the source myself and see if I agree with the characterization of its argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

post WWII ?
not that much about post WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this page really should have more information about modern German nationalism. Charles Essie (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When did it begin?
The start of German nationalism may be a highly controversial issue whose solution depends on the definition of the word. The definition used in the first sentence of the article may be correct. But then, German nationalism did not begin in the late 18th and early 19th century but in the 15th century as is already mentioned in some parts of the article. Especially the early 16th century was the heyday of German nationalism promoted by writers like Conrad Celtis, Jakob Wimpheling, Ulrich von Hutten or Lazarus von Schwendi. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

First sentence
I'd like a verification for that first sentence in the lead, since I would find it bizarre if a book actually described nationalism that way. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the first sentence needs to be "Germanic peoples" or "Germanic speaking peoples" instead of the word "German" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.133.241.93 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Why was the 1945-present section completely deleted?
What's the reason? I know a lot of Germans are severely guilted post-1945, but surely nationalism still exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8B09:7E00:8027:B312:6B45:DBBD (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted: it was never there. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede
I have removed WP:UNDUE content introduced without WP:CONSENSUS (per WP:SILENCE, given how long the current version and emphasis has been here), and restored the previous version while incorporating some useful additions. Please discuss below before making sweeping changes to the scope of the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please follow WP:BRD and stop making changes with WP:NOCONSENSUS. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dramatically changing the scope of a related article, without WP:CONSENSUS, to support your position in a content-dispute on another article is explicitly WP:GAMING, please don't do it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your removal of "and emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans; the latter is problematic given the actions of Nazi Germany and ideology of the Nazism." removes the core of the post-war issue from the lead. This is directly supported by the accompanying source and summarizes the body of the article per LEAD.   I will note that the nationalism article also makes it clear that defining/defending the national identity is a key part of nationalism generally.  Please justify that removal in particular. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:L.R. Wormwood you have not responded to this, which is really the heart of the matter. I look forward to a response that is based on the reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to restore that bit, I just copied over the opening paragraph, which was sloppy of me. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not revert further here. You either stand by your edit, or you will fix it.  As you will. I have only called out one small part of it here.  Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully retract the comment above, which was a response to your threat. The current version is clearly superior. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand which comment you are retracting. But it appears that you are 'standing by' removing the heart of the matter from the lead here, and you still have not justified doing so. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still nothing here justifying removal of well sourced content. Just marking it. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. I consider his argument null and void until he bothers to come back and make it. You don't get to hold an article hostage like that. --Tarage (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Coming at this from a different angle, let's see some of what in the entire edit was actually changed (rather than just moved around) in the disputed edit(s). There's a lot, and the diff software isn't very good at making things line up for various reasons, but these are the substantial changes that I saw and had an opinion on:
 * German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation, promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state, and emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans; the latter is problematic given the actions of Nazi Germany and ideology of the Nazism. (italicized text added) I think the first part of this addition is reasonable given the content of the article, but the second part (after the semicolon) is IMO unnecessary and somewhat recentist and/or undue for the first sentence of the article. It's discussed in appropriate detail further in the lede anyways; no need to name-drop Nazis in the first sentence.
 * Aggressive German nationalism is viewed as having been a key factor in causing World War I and the cause of World War II under the Nazis which sought to create a new German empire with Greater Germany at its core, and emphasized German identity and German greatness to the exclusion of all others, and sought to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and other peoples in the Holocaust. (italicized word added) Again, not sure if this is really necessary. Do sources qualify it like this? If they do, it's good; if not, should be removed. Also, this sentence is pretty grammatically horrible; I'll fix it a bit after I finish this up.
 * German nationalism has faced difficulties in promoting a united German identity as well as facing opposition within Germany. The Catholic-Protestant divide in Germany at times created extreme tension and hostility between Catholic and Protestant Germans after 1871, such as in response to the policy of Kulturkampf in Prussia by German Chancellor and Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck, that sought to dismantle Catholic culture in Prussia, that provoked outrage amongst Germany's Catholics and resulted in the rise of the pro-Catholic Centre Party and the Bavarian People's Party. There have been rival nationalists within Germany, particularly Bavarian nationalists who claim that the terms that Bavaria entered into Germany in 1871 were controversial and have claimed the German government has long intruded into the domestic affairs of Bavaria. Outside of modern-day Germany in Austria, there are Austrian nationalists who have rejected unification of Austria with Germany on the basis of preserving Austrians' Catholic religious identity from the potential danger posed by being part of a Protestant-majority Germany. (entirely removed, as far as I can see) Perhaps a bit too detailed for the lede, but there's no reason I can see to entirely remove this paragraph rather than just simplify it a little. The last sentence is actually a copy of the untouched one at the end of the lede, I'd remove it if the paragraph goes back in.
 * German reunification was achieved in 1990 following Die Wende; an event that caused some alarm both inside and outside of Germany. Germany has emerged as a power inside Europe and in the world; its role in the European debt crisis and in the European migrant crisis have led to criticism of German authoritarian abuse of its power, especially with regard to the Greek debt crisis, and raised questions within and without Germany as to Germany's role in the world. (italicized text added) I'm probably wrong, but I don't see what some of the added text has to do with German nationalism. Sure, the debt and migrant crises are important factors as mentioned in the article, but "authoritarian abuse of its power" and "Germany's role in the world" don't quite fit with the article's topic of "German identity". Yes, I understand that it's also mentioned somewhat in the article body, but I don't think it really fits there either. Maybe it's not well explained or sourced, I don't know.
 * German nationalism has been generally viewed in the country as taboo and people within Germany have struggled to find ways to acknowledge its past but take pride in its past and present accomplishments - the German question has never been fully resolved in this regard. A wave of national pride swept the country when it hosted the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Far-right parties that stress German national identity and pride and seek to exclude or denigrate non-Germans have existed since the end of World War II but have never governed; as of 2017 the most prominent such party was Alternative for Germany, which was founded in reaction to the Euro crisis but came to embrace taking pride in being German, repudiating German shame over the Nazi past, and anti-immigrant themes.  (italicized text added) Finally, one that looks like a reasonable, uncontroversial addition to me (though I understand why some may object).
 * Apart from the specific changes, I think that Jytdog's version is better ordered but is split into too many short paragraphs, making it a bit unwieldy to read. But that can be fixed after the content is ironed out.
 * Hope this helps. I'll go make those small copyediting changes now. ansh 666 07:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Too many things at once. First bullet point first.  The part after the semi colon that you are object to is: a) 100% supported by the source which has an extensive quote and b) summarizes the body.  Do you really want to try to argue here that Nazism is not probably the most important thing that has happened in Germany with respect to its national identity?  It occurred ~80 years ago, so the recentism argument is doubly weak.   But please elaborate on your argument here. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's "100% supported" - actually, it's not really supported at all, it's just an inference that you took. The only clause in the source which may support this is "to confront the negative manifestations of German nationalism", but this doesn't specifically point to Nazism; my reading is that the source declares in no uncertain terms that the problems started with Imperial Germany. Further, there's no need to "summarize the body" in such detail in the first sentence, which really should just be a neutral definition. By including Nazism in the first sentence, and in that manner, you're confidently linking all of German nationalism with Nazism (which as of now has only existed for less than half of if) in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't what the source says. Finally, it just sounds abrupt and weird to name-drop Nazis in the first sentence; it works much better expanded and explained later. ansh 666 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" does not mean "not negative." The key part of the quote is: "It is only through this context that one can begin to understand German nationalism—a feeling that showed much promise in a more benign and traditional form before spiraling downward under Imperial Germany and the fanaticism of Nazi Germany.  Today, German nationalism remains an intensely debated concept within the context of the reunified nation.  What is often labeled the "German Problem" refers to Germany's ongoing struggle to define what it means to be German, to confront the negative manifestations of German nationalism, and to find balance as a German nalion-state locked in the center of Europe. An understanding of German nationalism requires thinking in terms of three distinct historical periods: the rise of German nationalism that culminated in the emergence of the first unified German nation in 1871 under Prussian leadership: the development of Adolf Hitler's extreme and virulent form of nationalism under the guise of National Socialism (Nazism); and the post-World War II struggle within the Federal Republic of Germany over the very nature of German nationalism and German identity."   That last bit - "the very nature of German nationalism and identity" - is what the deleted phrase addresses.  This is what every German for the last 80 years has to wrestle with - "what am I as a German?  What does it mean that my people did this?"
 * And btw nationalisms, in defining themselves in the positive sense ("we are X") often also define themselves negatively "Y is not part of us" and the holocaust is absolutely the ultimate expression of that. Various forms of "anti-" ness of a less extreme form of the same thing and are common.   This too is something that specifically German nationalism has to wrestle with; the Nazi era holds the paradigmatic example of exclusionary nationalism taken to extreme ends that echoes all over the place.  Removing mention of the holocaust from the lead is untenable in this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You say, That last bit - "the very nature of German nationalism and identity" - is what the deleted phrase addresses. This is what every German for the last 80 years has to wrestle with - "what am I as a German? What does it mean that my people did this?" But note that nothing in the quotes directly links that with Nazism. What you're trying to say simply isn't there. It's not that Nazis and the Holocaust and all that don't belong in the lede - they certainly do, and are mentioned fairly extensively. It's the first sentence, which defines the term being discussed, where it doesn't really fit. "Neutral" does not mean "not negative"; it means "not negative and not positive". ansh 666  22:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, you do not seem familiar with WP:LEAD which does emphasize summarizing the body, and yes the first sentence is summary-summary. The essence of German Nationalism in 2017 is intimately tied up with its Nazi past.  Motyl makes this very clear in the quoted section from his book, and the entire Post WWI section of the article makes this clear as well.  Every source that discusses German nationalism in the post-war era discusses it in that inescapable light.  Please review them.   This is a 'sky is blue" thing and I find your resistance here hard to understand.  Also, if the holocuast belongs in the lead, why it is it not there now? Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * this piece, cited in the article, provides the mainstream view on German nationalism in the post WWII era, concisely and well. Motyl's view is entirely consistent with this. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that the lede has been changed since I last read it, so this discussion seems pointless then. ansh 666 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because that set of changes further gutted the lead of relevant content. If you want to bail however that is fine. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you quote the sentence which refers to how the German question remains unresolved? Thanks. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:L.R. Wormwood, you are back, and have again removed content from the lead that is well sourced and connected to the topic via sources that do that, in the body of the article - totally justified by every policy and guideline. If content is connected to the topic via sources - and many of them - it cannot be SYN.  Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, actually, I don't care. If people want to make this an article about German nationalism in general, they can go ahead and do that. I have better things to do with my time. I just hope someone comes along after me and rewrites the lede. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

statement in lead "german nationalism is taboo"
It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction. I, at the moment, cannot read the source which is used here. It might be very likely that the content in the source is misinterpreted. The Pride in being "german" is an issue, however that is some other topic than "german nationalism" with its aim to form a nation for german people.--Joobo (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed above already. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, and it is all sorted out?--Joobo (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Don't change it till it is. --Tarage (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * None should change it till it is? I forgot, the new way Wikipedia works is that some User is changing a whole article about an historic national ideology to the own purpose of including it as a link and reference into another article and afterwards  one may not change anything until "it is sorted out"? I am flabbergasted. This lead and other parts of the article will change, simply because they are not accurate and fit into this article. In case you want to play around as well I am sure at a certain point some admins might want to have a look on this whole situation that is going on. --Joobo (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really not complicated. Change, revert, discuss. You changed, Jytdog reverted, you reverted back(the incorrect thing to do, leads to edit warring), and I restored it. The next step is to discuss. It's one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. Try reading WP:CYCLE. --Tarage (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently you missed something here. Jytdog is the user who changed/edited content in the article; massively. He and you are the ones obliged to discuss and highlight your points on talk after some of it gets deleted and questioned. It is not the other way around. That is why i asked if something has changed in Wikipedia policy... --Joobo (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please address the actual changes you made to the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Adorable, but no. He made a change, no one objected, so it sticks. You make a change, it instantly gets reverted, and thus here we are. Stop looking at other users and look at your own behavior. --Tarage (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It got questioned. By me editing/deleting it. If you really want to play a game just continue with what you are doing right now. --Joobo (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please indent your comments. Please justify your changes. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't REVERT, you CHANGED. There is a difference. Unless you have something to say beyond "Wah you are gaming the system" and "I didn't know the rules worked that way", this conversation is over. --Tarage (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Joobo", you went right back to removing the content that was discussed above. Please finish the discussion here before continuing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mere content that is sourced alone does not qualify for an automatic inclusion into an article. Other factors matter as well, and you as you are a experienced user should know about that. Finally, just assume good faith for once in other editors moves, also if it does not necessarily goes excactly with your initial perception of things. AGF is one major pillar of WP.Joobo (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to provide actual reasons, based on the policies and guidelines and reliable sources, for the removals. You have not provided them. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Black German nationalism"
I have just removed the section "Black German nationalism" for being completely unreferenced. It was added half a year ago by. Based on my limited knowledge, that material seems factual (although a lil' bit of editorializing has snuck in), so I don't have a content problem with it; but I would suggest that in such a reasonably high-profile article on a potentially contentious topic, we shouldn't add good-sized sections without a single reference. JaneaWilson1, can you speak to the sourcing for this text? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

History
What where consequence that Germany start a new National list radicalist war 2402:3A80:1B50:D482:0:6A:336E:FC01 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)