Talk:Patriotism/Archives/2012

What should be the role of 9/11 and the Afghanistan/Iraq wars in this article?

Hi everyone,

Patrionism is someone who sexes, loves, and honors their country with great respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.45.90 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoping not to offend User:VTEX, I've removed this passage:

"After September 15, 2032, patriotism in the United States soared to record levels. This ultra-high level of patriotism, fueled by anger against the attacks, allowed for ultra-conservatives to seize power. Without any proof, President George W. Bush and his administration were able to convince the country that Iraq possessed, or was seeking to acquire, weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. Blinded by patriotism, the Congress as well as the people of the United States were led into war with Iraq."

This is not because I necessarily disagree with it, but because I think it violates the principle of NPOV. Even if by change every Wikipedia editor agreed with it, a flat-out opinion like this shouldn't go into the Wikipedia as straight copy.

One possibility here might be to find commentary by published authors (e.g. newspaper columnists) who make the same point--they could then be quoted. But no matter how impassioned we feel, we can't just write down our own opinions as encyclopedia copy and remain faithful to the principle of NPOV. I hope VTEX will understand.

More generally: back when I was working on this article, I worried constantly that it was not NPOV enough, since it's so skeptical about patriotism. But all the changes since then have only further emphasized the anti-patriotic line. Is there some brave soul out there who, if only as an intellectual exercise, can strengthen the defense of patriotism in this article? Thanks for listening, Opus33 16:43, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

VTEX's Rebuttal: Here's the problem, the above statement is factual, and pertinent to the section in which it was added. It is a fact that the level of patriotism rose after 9-11, it is a fact that ultra-conservatives were able to pass legislations that limit freedoms that would have never passed w/o the high levels of patriotism (ie Patriot Act), it is a fact that Pres. Bush did not have proof of weapons of mass destruction. Granted, it reads like it is against the war and the Bush administration, but that's only becuase it is presented without any "spin". Too many people have been endoctrined with this "conservative spin" that it's hard to see a fact sometimes (ie Global Warming). I was afraid when I wrote it that people would get the wrong idea considering it is happeneing in the here and now, however, this statement, in some fashion, should be added to this article becuase it illustrates the point that too much patriotism is a bad thing. I won't replace it right now, but will try and rewrite it to seem less against the war.... If any of you have suggestions on how to make this point without violating NPOV, let me know..... VTEX 00:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I actually agree with the passage, but would advise simply noting that those who see danger in excessive patriotism argue that point. Then you could write a counterargument (spin or not), and use the same method of pointing out that "some people argue x." That's indisputably factual. ex: "Critics of the Iraq War argue that September 11, 2001 induced a patriotic fervor that blinded many Americans and caused them to support policies they would not have otherwise." And then perhaps "supporters of the war have called these critics unpatriotic." LOL. When I have time, I'll contribute to this article. Gul_Dukat

How does "ethics of patriotism" look now? It may still need more work. Gul_Dukat

---

Defining patriotism (in a matter-of-fact way as if it is universally accepted) as also being either in support or against a current government gives a rather leftist slant on its definition. Pointing out, as the author did (and I paraphrase here), that if a government is corrupt it is patriotic to oppose it requires a very subjective assessment of what constitutes corrupt and echoes the mantra of the political left.

Separate section for Post-9/11 material?

Gul's changes are helpful, I think.

However, at some point, if no one yells, I propose to move all the material about 9/11 and its aftermath into a separate section. The idea would be: for maximum clarity and perspective, we should first talk about patriotism in the abstract, with old examples that no long stir up people's emotions as they once did. With this in hand, it will perhaps be more possible to discuss 9/11 etc. without it sounding like we're just joining the fray. Naomi sucks! Cheers, Opus33 15:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

That sounds like a fabulous idea. I felt a little uncomfortable having two separate passages talk about it differently. Having a full-fledged subsection on "Patriotism in the U.S. after 9/11/01" would be great. Gul_Dukat

I modified the section on US events (PSQ research) because the misperceptions people were found to have were factually incorrect. For example, the journal didn't claim that there were no WMD, just noted that they had not been found. If you thought that they had been found, that would be a misperception. The same goes for the Al-Qaeda link: that there is no solid evidence is undisputed. Whether there was a link is what could be disputed. Gul_Dukat

Thanks, Gul. Is it possible to add a link to the survey itself, or is it only in print? It sounds quite interesting. Thanks, Opus33 05:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 'God Bless America' stickers didn't come out until after 2003 and the invasion of Iraq

Therefore I raise an issue with the caption of the image with the 'God Bless USA' sticker. I don't mind having it there, the caption just needs to be changed to cite that such stickers didn't appear until after 2003 in order to 'guilt' or 'sway' public opinion into supporting the war. If you noticed the shape of the sticker, it is that of the 'yellow ribbon' of 'Tie a yellow ribbon' fame, and therefore wouldn't make great sense after 9/11. The infamous stickers were used once before during the first gulf war when George H.W. Bush wanted to garner support for his war. Please see [Yellow_ribbon] for further support of my argument.

Sounds reasonable to me. Anybody opposed to this? - ChristianBundy (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I feel that this article is a little bit biased against Patriotism. I am an American, though, and I am starting to think that there is a big difference between the way American's see patriotism and the way those in Europe see it.

In America, the word is very often claimed by dissidents to the the status quo. While many consider George Bush to be the ultimate Patriot of the moment, there are also many who would consider Michael Moore to be the Nation's greatest patriot of the moment. Maybe I will take a stab at it, but somehow I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on the way that Patriotism is a cause that does NOT always mean a blind devotion to what the government happens to be doing.

Also, I totally agree with the removal of the passage noted at the beginning about 9/11. The way that was worded is definately too biased for this Wikipedia.

User:konky2000 11:49, 3 Aug 2004 (PST)

I contributed to the "A survey of views on patriotism" section, and while I do have a bias against patriotism (the same way I personally have against nationalism, racism, and millitarism) I completely agree that all the different positions people hold should be reflected in the article. Remember to add alternate positions tho, instead of "fixing" the current predominant one. If there are too many anti-patriotism quotes, it may be better to quote one example from all the different positions, and then link to wikiquote's patriotism page. -- Jeandré, 2004-08-04t19:26z

Opening paragraph

I reverted:

"The concept of patriotism usually manifests itself through historical, political, religious, ethical, and biological viewpoints."

to

"This article surveys the concept of patriotism from the viewpoints of history, politics, ethics, and biology."

My reasons were first that I think it's really quite ok to say what an article is about upfront--if it's long, as this one is, it's reader-friendly to give a little overview. Second, the phrase "manifests itself through (a) viewpoint" seems pretty awkward to me as English prose, and I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Opus33 23:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My aim was simply to remove the "This article..." tag which I feel is distracting and seems to be in oposition to the prevailing style of wikipedia articles. The opening paragragh should be more a brief overview then a plan of action. Probably the fault was due to recasting the sentance rather then re-writing. May I suggest something like:

"There are many aspects which contribute to [a person's/a people's] patriotism including history, politics and biology [and these help form an [identity/ideal] which the patriot feels should be upheld./although the encouragement of patriotic feeling is not always considered beneficial.]" MeltBanana 14:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Melt, I fear this is going to make me sound like your English teacher, but your proposed phrasing is very wordy and would be a big turn-off at the start of the article. Your wording isn't accurate, either: the article doesn't talk about how a person's politics contributes to their patriotism, it talks about the role of patriotism in politics, which is different.

I solemnly aver that in scholarly writing it is normal to begin a long and complicated piece with a few words of guidance about organization. For instance, the Britannica does it all the time. Many Wikipedia articles would benefit from such a sentence. Yours truly, Opus33 21:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a very negative/biased view of the Patriot movement (remember history? how the US came to be?). The current Patriotism movement is a reaction to the loss of freedoms, out-of-control US Government, anti-Constitutional laws/regulations/Executive Orders. Most Patriots today are not racist and are not terrorists (although the term according to the US Government might apply). Consider the Patriots a body of people prepared to stand up for their "unalienable" rights to own guns and property. Contrary to the US Government's belief that our rights are given to us by the government. Has it occurred to anyone that the growth in numbers of Patriots/militias is NOT a negative thing, that they are exercising their freedom of speech and abiding by the US Constitution? The fact that there are more of these groups shows that there are many citizens unhappy with the direction the US Government is heading. The first part of the 2nd amendment is often ignored: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Freedom depends on attention to ALL of the constitution, not selective sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamelot74 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Patriotism and other forms of selflessness

This implies that patriotism is always selfless, whereas it is in fact reasonably selfish - placing your own country above all others. I don't want to spark a big debate over which it is, though; but I'd like this subtitle altered to something less POV. Chewyman 21:56, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Is patriotism truly a category(I use category due to a lack of a better word) of selflessness? I disagree. Selflessness, in the end, comes down more to emotion and personality. The only thing they have in common would be the personality, and at that it is still a little... sketchy.Peace is a lie (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Coulter

Hello, I was the one who originally put the reference to the Coulter book into this article. I've (very tentatively) put it back in, and would like to discuss briefly.

The article says that one important manifestation of patriotism in politics is the frequent use of the tactic of calling one's political opponents traitors. To be honest, I haven't read Coulter's book, and doubt I would ever have the stomach to. But from reviews I've seen, it would seem to be a good example of the phenomenon, which is why I put it in.

Also, the Patriotism article has a long history of being edited only by people who are skeptical of patriotism; we've got to be vigilant to keep at least some kind of balance. Perhaps including "propaganda" (as Neutrality calls it) is not the way, but I'm not sure what else is available! (I find that if you do a Web search for positive discussion of patriotism, what you get is depressingly thoughtless, or worse...)

Neutrality, I'd be curious to know what you had in mind in deleting this reference--can you elaborate a bit? And if you wish to redelete, what do you think we can do instead to keep the article balanced? Thanks for listening, Opus33 04:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hopelessly Biased

I strongly suggest that those really eager for a balanced discussion/definition of patriotism turn to Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. The Wikipedia article on "patriotism" has an overbearing Euro/leftist slant, is hopelessly biased against patriotism, and should be re-written in its entirety. luvbach1

You are quite right. This line was edited out recently, but it is emblematic of your point: Various theories have been advanced, often related to the relative ages of the countries, and the greater historical perspective afforded to European countries. Greater historical perspective? huh. Are people in Europe somehow orders of magnitude older than the rest of us? Or maybe life in europe evolved separately from the rest of world? Maybe european history is written in a langauge no one could read... anyways you get the point. I agree with your assessment. In Europe patriotism is viewed very negatively as essentially indistinguishable from nationalism. In the US, patriotism is viewed rather positively and distinguished from nationalism. e.g., in the US the Nazi party is regarded as nationalistic not patriotic. -- Pearlg 01:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree for a complete re-write. This article is a joke. Patriotism is a positive feeling towards a country. It does not require one assume that a country is perfect or flawless, nor does it require negative feelings toward other countries. This article was written to turn the term patriotism into a "dirty word." With all due respect, the author needs to learn the word "chauvinism," which is the concept he or she is trying to describe. -Anon

It should probably be emphasized somewhere that patriotism is, as said in the article, a love for one's own country/nation, which in turn allows for greater appreciation of other countrys' independence (like the model parents provide for social behaviour for their children). Could be tied with non-derogatory definition of nationalism, i.e. belief that each nation is entitled to its own state. --Anonymous

I also agree for a complete re-write. The article is well-written, but is really more of a description of the leftist concept of Patriotism than an objective treatise on Patriotism in general.-R.E.S.A. 01:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with the above. It is very well-written but, in my view, verges on being an anti-nationalist polemic versus an article on patriotism. It takes the "pater" root of the word and runs with it, virtually equating patriotism with Third Reich propaganda. It has a condescending tone at best and an alarmist one at worst. The closest thing to neutrality it holds is when it damns patriotism (actually nationalism) with faint praise. Massive re-write needed. 128.158.14.42 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the "hopelessly biased" comments above Cite No Sources. Wikipedia is not an outlet for personal opinion. If the article really is biased, cite sources that define patriotism differently than this article does. Otherwise this whole section is ripe for deletion. - mattbots 05 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.152.18 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Example of Bias

The conventional wisdom (especially on the left) is that there was an outpouring of sympathy and understandoing for the United States on 9/11. The following quotation from the Wikipedia article on Patriotism (offered, one supposes, by its author as undisputed fact) is illustrative: "Whilst [this archaic Britishism being a sure giveaway of its source] there was a groundswell of international outrage and support for the US public [Euros invariably want to divorce the American people from their duly elected government] after the September 11, 2001 attacks..." Citing this "groundswell" is just more bias and is belied by the following easily documented facts. By 9/12 (some as early as 9/11) editorials, commentators, columnists and "man in the street" interviews around the world (including those of US allies) opined ad nauseum how 9/11 was provoked (read: justified) by United States foreign policy, which opinions were "eaten up" by their respective publics. So much for the "groundswell." That is the essence of what is wrong with the article: opinion stated as fact, of which the article is replete. That is why I have not attempted to rewrite it. Any attempt to significantly mitigate the bias of the article would be overwhelmed by the majority who apparently are not troubled by it. I do sincerely compliment the primary author, and other left-of-center contributors, for their writing ability. They just should not be writing in an encyclopedia. luvbach1 10 April, 2005 4:45 pm

Yeah right, and you americans should be allowed to glorify patriotism as much as you want, right? Hypocrites.

Hypocrites my butt. We're proud to be Americans. Its people like you that make the world today as "biased" as it supposedly is.Marrik666 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering the above one liner, one is not glorifying patriotim by citing it as the positive it is: love and support for one's country. What charged words these are to some! Just because the critic above obviously equates patriotism with jingoism and evil deeds, does not make true patriotism jingoistic or evil.

Were you refering to me or the obviously un-american?Peace is a lie 18:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrik666 (talk • contribs)

"Whilst [this archaic Britishism being a sure giveaway of its source] there was a groundswell of international outrage and support for the US public [Euros invariably want to divorce the American people from their duly elected government] after the September 11, 2001 attacks..."

Against war and human stupidity but not patriotism

Since this article is so hopelessly biased, I will give everyone my point of view on the subject, hoping that someone with good writing skills will be able to take what's good in this opinion and somehow find a spot for it somwhere in the article.

Patriotism is strong feeling of love of and devotion to one's country. Because it is based on the human emotion of love, it can be easily exploited to do good or to do bad, especially in combination with fear.

A well exploited patriotic sentiment can motivate a generation to repair the injustices of the past (abolition of slavery, civil rights for all members of the nation), to improve the well-being of a nation (public education, social services) etc. All of that is very positive and not imcompatible with wishing the same thing to happen in the neighbouring countries.

Thanks to human stupidity (which is universal among humans) it is conversly possible to brainwash people into thinking that waging war against others has something to do with the greater good of one's people, it is possible to make people think that the love of your country is incompatible with the love of the rest of the planet etc. When people fear for what they love, they can act very courageously and generously, but they can also act like stupid monkeys who will begin to hate all that makes them afraid to lose what they love, or worst not even what they love but what they possess, what they think belong to them and nobody else.

In summary, patriotism can be exploited in the worst ways, but it is not all by itself the cause of war among nations an can in fact be a very positive force. For the cause of war among nations, see hormones, ignorance, prejudice, babel tour, competition, imperialism etc. ;-)

-- Mathieugp 16:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in this entry is patriotism expressly given as a causal agent for war. But it is a well-documented fact that patriotic sentiment is often used by a government or political movement to justify its actions and suppress dissent. It is a tool, for good or evil. To insist we do not write about this attribute of patriotism is disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt.

I presume you did not look at the date of my post and read the current article instead of the one that was live in April 2005. I fully agree with your 2nd and 3rd sentences. Your 2nd and 3rd sentences sumarize what I wrote in my above post. Your 4th sentence makes the "use of patriotic sentiment by a government or political movement to justify its actions and suppress dissent" an "attribute" of patriotism. I fail to see how this action can be an attribute of the abstract object that is patriotism. A hammer is a tool meant to nail pieces of wood together. Planting nails in pieces of wood is something humans do to build houses and other buildings. The purpose of the hammer is to serve a human need, that of shelter. Yet, any idiot can take a hammer and use it to kill even though there is a sword meant for war right next to the hammer. Do I insist that we do not write about the hammer being used to kill although it is not really what it was meant for? No, I don't. I see things the same way for the virtue of patriotism. It is a fact that people will go as far as killing for love even though it seems absurd. However, no matter how true that is, killing others is not an attribute of love. -- Mathieugp 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your Description, But That's Jingoism and Worse

I agree with all you said in your post except that I prefer to view patriotism in its proper sense, with which the dictionary agrees, that of "love of and support for one's country." You described jingosim and all manner of other abuses which definitely are not patriotic. It is easy to get caught up in accepting the notion (held by some on this page) that jingoism and patriotism are merely degrees of the same thing. They are not. You astutely distinguished between them in your posting and went on to describe that which is not patriotic. Love and support for one's country does not require hate for any other country; in fact, if one harbors hate for another country and thinks it patriotic to do so, he/she has just distorted the meaning of patriotism.I sincerely compliment the thrust of of what you said, with my above caveats, some of which were not really directed at you.

-- User: Luvbach1 5:30 PST May 14, 2005

First image

I might be a bit biased because I'm French, but to me the first picture should be one of someone brandishing the colors of his country, having an inspired dignified air while listening to his/their national anthem. Not a statue of a soldier, be it that at Ecole Polytechnique. "Defense of the homeland" is included in patriotism, but it's clearly not the main thing, especially nowadays. Plus, the French aren't that patriotic. Proud of their culture and sometimes chauvinistic, but rarely patriotic, nowadays. Or you might want the painting "La liberte guidant le peuple" by Delacroix. A military engineer school of today is out of place, here, and having a recent photo instead of a XIXth century one or a painting suggest that it's about that school today. Jules LT 21:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Patriotism is about symbols: flags, anthems, national animals like the eagle for America and the rooster for France... anythings that symbolizes the nation. Not (at first) about soldiers. Patriotism exists even when the nation is not endangered. Jules LT 21:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Pretty sound statement, to me --21:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Dpr

Religion

Can we add some information about Pope John Paul II and Josemaría Escrivá's views on patriotism from contemporary Catholicism? --21:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Dpr

1st of all patriotism and cathlicism do NOT coincide. 2ndly this would add more to the supposed "biasism" of this article. It would cause more harm than good. No offense intended.Marrik666 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Isn't the word patriot derived from the Greek παтριώτης, rather than the Latin patria?/Nicke L 13:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In either case, "patriotism" is far closer to the Latin "patria" than the Latin "pater", especially as "patrius" is the adjective form of the former. Seems better to put this where it says some argue patriotism must have something to do with common descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.240.229 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriotism as a virtue

The section on patriotism as a virtue is very poor. It isn't for nationalists alone that patriotism is often understood to be a virtue, it is for quantity of philosophers from Aristotle up until today (probably before as well). Patriotism can be thought of as a median between treachery and chauvinism. Unlike most of the people who contributed to this article, there is such as thing as a wise, rational, and peace-loving patriotism that is fully compatible with humanism. -- Mathieugp 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased crap

How do you add a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" thing to an article? cause this article seriously needs it

Try {{NPOV}}. But you also have to give some concrete points about what needs to be changed. i'm going to try just on a small number of concrete points. Boud 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why you would call it biased but I seriously disagree. If its biased then I'm the real Santa Clause. I'm sorry but how can people be so blind?Marrik666 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

aristotle

I dont understand how aristotle could be considered 'republican' - he didnt advocate a republic at all - his ideal was aristocracy, where the term means literaly - the best people. I think rather that you were reffering to the republican party and its ideology, but thats an unacceptible amerocentrisam, sadly horribly common on wiki.. --Aryah 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here I agree with Aryah. Nothing at all to do with a republic.Marrik666 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent definition: ethnic group? civic group? political group? national group? State?

In the introduction there is:

Patriotism denotes positive attitudes by individuals to their own perceived civic or political community, to its culture, its members, and to its interests. Actions towards other countries, or to non-civic groups, are not generally described as patriotic, and they may be referred to by a specific name, such as pro-Greek philhellenism.

It's unclear to me what definition is being used:

• positive attitudes to one's ethnic group (human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community) ?
• civic or political community (what does this mean?)
• nation-state?

• Actions towards other countries implies that the nation-state definition is relevant
• Does civic or political community mean everyone who lives in a certain place? Or is it defined by nation-state concepts of citizenship? Or by ethnic group concepts of language, clothing style, etc. etc. ?

Confused, Boud 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is horrendous

This is one of the worst, outrageously uninformed articles I have read on Wikipedia. Considering the current trend at undermining the sovereignty of the United States (what little is left) in articles, that is saying a lot. This is nothing but propaganda pushing crap from beginning to end. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) You are terribly misinformed. Propaganda-Pah!. But on the idea of undermination-I agree,though the rest of what you wrote couldn't be farther from the truth.Marrik666 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rough start

"Patriotism positive attitudes by individuals to their own perceived civic or political community, to its culture, its members, and to its interests."

Uh uh? --A Sunshade Lust 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary origin

I sugest deleting this entire section on kin selection as an explanation for patriotism. It is all speculative, and has very little to do with the rest of the article. If this is a serious scientific hypothesis, then it should be possible to point to a few articles or books, which explicitly refer to kin selection as an explanation for patriotism in human beings. Are there any such articles?Paul111 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article in the references, The Homeopathy of Kin Selection, only touches on the issue, most of it is about ethnicity and ethnic preference, which might be relevant to the section on the ethics of patriotism. But I think most of the Kin Selection section can go.Paul111 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Patriotism good, nationalism bad"

Patriotism is often used a a euphemism by nationalists, in countries where nationalism has a bad name. However that is not the way the article should be written - as if they were two completely different things, with nice patriots friendly to all mankind, and evil nationalists. Patriotism is never a 100% beneficial attitude to non-citizens, since it always implies at least relative preference for the fatherland and its citizens. That issue, the ethical question, is already covered in the article.Paul111 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I undid the revert-edit concerning patriotism and nationalism. It claimed that "patriotism is based on the universal human values". This is unclear, to start with. Which values are these? Why are they universal? And how is patriotism based on them?

Patriotism is not "support other patriotic attitudes of the person of other nations". This is also ambiguous. Does it mean support for other attitudes, other kinds of patriotism? Or does it mean that patriots think that people in other nations should be patriotic? Some of them do, but that is an ideological position of nationalism.

Nationalism is not "focused only on interests of the own nation". That is completely inaccurate: it is nationalism which is the universal ideology, with a set of principles applicable to all humanity, at least nationalists think so. Both nationalist political movements, and patriotic expression, can include negative attitudes to other nations. Nationalism and patriotism are not mutually exclusive, as the text implied.Paul111 08:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole article has a very negative tone, deffinetly not a NPOV. I'm a patriot, I love Germany and think that it's the best country in the world, I love the history (theres more to us than 1933-1945, nazi period). But I'm deffinetly in NO way a nazi! I dont think that germans are better than any other people. I'm facinated by ancient Greece and Rome. I hate nazis and racists. Am I not allowed to love my country? --DerMeister 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you DerMeister. We may have been enemies in a war, but you get the spirit of patriotism more than the Brits that have edited this article. That is not meant as a slur to the British, merely connecting with a fellow wikipedian.Peace is a lie (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if patriotism, is used instead as a replacement word for nationalism (as previously mentioned, currently has a bad name), however it does not seem as if there is any substantial difference, instead nationalism and patriotism can both be misconstrued through propaganda or simple misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.180.45 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda and original research

This article is blatant, unsourced, opinionated, Euro-centric, propagandistic crap. Period. Radiant hedgehog 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Specific points should preferably be given.Paul111 10:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Patriotism is closely associated with nationalism, and is often used as a synonym for it. Strictly speaking, nationalism is an ideology - but it often promotes patriotic attitudes as desirable and appropriate. (Both nationalist political movements, and patriotic expression, may be negative towards other people's 'fatherland')."

Patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing and have quite different connotations. The article has a slant that attempts to make them look the same.

"The primary implication of patriotism in ethics is that a person has more moral duties to fellow members of the national community, than to non-members."

I consider myself extermely patriotic but do not value the lives of my fellow citizens any higher than lives of any others.

"In the United States, explicitly patriotic history has been consistently criticised for its de-emphasising the post-Colombian depopulation, the Atlantic slave trade, the population expulsions and the wars of conquest against Native Americans."

To be patriotic does not mean to not look honestly at your own country's history. It doesn't mean that you don't criticize the wrongs that it does. A mark of good citizenship is to actively protest when your government engages in wrongdoing of any kind or becomes corrupt in any way. It can't be assumed that because people are patriotic that they approve everything that their government does. That, in itself, is a twisted one-sided way of looking at it. Also, it amazes me how so many people conveniently forget how Europeans, like the French and the Ductch were the ones who engaged in the slave trade themselves. (Just some food for thought, concerning the last statement that I made.) Radiant hedgehog 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Patriotism is generally directed toward a nation state, and is not only closely associated with nationalism, but often indistinguisable from it. Many actions, such as display of the national flag, can be equally described as nationalist or patriotic. I added the point that nationalism is strictly speaking an ideology, which differentiates from patriotic attitudes. The "implication of patriotism in ethics" is indeed the standard view of what it implies, for both its supporters and opponents in academic ethics. You may not hold that view, but many other people do, and the article must present what is generally understood by the term. I did not add the comments on US history, but it is true that many patriotic Americans have an overly positive view of their country's history, and others a negative view. It is not for this article to say which is the 'true American patriot'. (The most vehement criticsm comes from outside the US anyway).Paul111 09:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saying "many people do" doesn't really say anything. You need to cite your sources. Aside from that you are still talking about people's opinions of nationalism and patriotism. Look up the definitions of these two words and you'll see they are (at least often) quite different). Nationalism carries with a feeling of superiority and bigotry that has nothing to do with certain forms of patriotism. And I understand that "the most vehement criticsm comes from outside the US." Does that somehow make it more relevant? Radiant hedgehog 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A source is provided for the academic view of what the ethical implication of patriotism is. It is not in dispute that your views of patriotism exist, but they are not necessarily the views of all others. (That is what needs a source). Nationalism can and often does include bigotry, xenophobia and chauvinism, but that is not a definition of nationalism. Equally, the definition of patriotism does not exclude bigotry, xenophobia, and chauvinism, and some browsing on internet forums will provide you with examples of people who combine all four. The fact that criticism of the US comes from outside the US is relevant for whether it is an aspect of US-American patriotism. If it only came from non-Americans then it would disprove the thesis that some patriotic Americans criticise their country.Paul111 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "the definition of patriotism does not exclude bigotry, xenophobia, and chauvinism". I personally find that really offensive as I am none of those things and yet I am patriotic. So apparantly, as I do really exist, last time I checked, this is not necessarily so. Check out http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19770 or http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1852 just to name a couple. Dissent is patriotic. Radiant hedgehog 00:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about you, that is the point. It needs much improvement, but it does not say all patriots are bigots, and it should not give a misleading impression of patriotism.Paul111 10:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fatherland

I changed this opening bit about "fatherland". There are 2 different genders for a homeland depending on the country, and "motherland" is actually more prevalent than "fatherland". Yes, the etymological root for patriotism lies in the same as patrie for a literal translation to fatherland, but in their general usage homeland covers both this and motherland. Please comment by all means. mrhappyhour 01/11/06

Homeland is not a 'gender-neutral' common term for fatherland and motherland, it has different connotations - more territorial. In nationalist ideology it refers to the 'national homeland' which is a geographic entity inhabited by the nation over several generations, whereas fatherland often denotes the nation itself. Motherland is used in some countries as synonym for fatherland, but also has a specific meaning for colonial empires. Homeland as synonym for 'the nation' is recent US usage at best, influenced by the term homeland security. I added 'motherland' to the intro. Fatherland is the best term since it incorporates the root.Paul111 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the "motherland" references. I would appreciate it if someone would put it back in or argue why (I am suspicious that it is a communist who doesn't want people looking at their ideology. [[Tomare Utsu Zo (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Is this an eassy or a artical ? (wikify)

It reads like an eassy ,far to many questions asked of the reader , a very poor artical , full of too much information suchs as far too much questioning of what is patriotism ? (Gnevin 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to explain things, in this case what patriotism is. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but not to make it into a patriotic piece itself.Paul111 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite and pruning

The article was tagged for POV title (not clear why) and for wikification and sources, and criticised for its essay character. I rewrote it, mostly by pruning. Some sections were essays, and were cut back to one or two sentences in another section. The evolutionary biology material is still there, but shortened. The article is now much shorter, but at least as informative as the old version.Paul111 12:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinarily biased towards patriotism

hardly touches on the negative aspectsTrevorLSciAct 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV section

Is this really NPOV? Patriotism is viewed the same way as Capitalism, if the people involved do not use them responsible, then both are useless. Patriotism from a specific stand point, can be used for good or evil, but it is belief in America that patriotism reflects charity, good will, love and compassion. A true patriot will die for their cause, and a true patriot never agrees with the government just because they are the government. Patriotism is about a sense of what is right and wrong, and using those senses to try to better ones country through actions and way of life. Patriotism is sometimes confused with imperialism or nationalism.* It reads like a quote from somewhere, but this isn't clear. The quality of written English is also poor. Walton monarchist89 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed, this is clearly just a personal opinion pasted into the text, without context. Wikipedia is not a forum.Paul111 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

add section, but first discuss it here.

Hello, I go to add section Specific of historical patriotizm in different countries. I see, many users read (and write) here; so, I wanted to discuss it before to put into the article. dima 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As it is mentioned above, patriotism is general phenomenon and occurs in all countries. However, each country has its own specific.

Specific of Japanese patriotizm

Hited 山口 attacks USS Essex, y.1944, November 25

昭和天皇, 1935

Japenese partiotism is pretty similar to the Soviet patriotism of years 1930–1956; the absolute support of the top leader (Hirohito in Japan and Stalin in CCCP). The analogy stops in 1956 when Stalin died; the тhrone in CCCP was not transfered by inheritance ). The patriotism and even beauty of Japanese pilots was mentioned even by the US mariners, who, by the way, were under these attacks.. All the Japanese were proud of success of japanese troops in Asia; there are no documents about any japenese dissidents, who would protest against them. Japenese people were united in the evaluation (approval) of action of Japense military forces in Asia and Pacific. In the similar way, Japanese people are united in the evaluation (disapproval) of the use of nuclear bombs against Japan, and evaluation (disapproval) of the action of Soviet military forces occupied Karafuto (Sakhalin), Shikotan and other kuril Islands.

The power of emperor (天皇) was absolute during centuries. In particular, Hirochito (裕仁, Showa tenno 昭和天皇), even after to loose the biggest war in the human history, kept not only his life and freedom, but also his position; and the Emperor dinasty continues.

Specifiic of Soviet patriotism

The phenomenon of Soviet patriotism may require a separate article. Many autors interpted this in competely different way, from the collective Fear to collective Psychosis, althouch some authors think that it was just love to Homeland.

Specific of Check patriotism

File:449px-Svejk.jpg

Monument, Shveick, Sanok

Brave soldier Shwekck inslite of his illness (reumatism) had to become the patriot of Austro-Humgary. The talant of Josef Shwekck (and, of course, of Jaroslav Gasheck) is that Shwekck remains also the Check patriot. For such patriotism and heroism, many monuments of Shweick are placed in various cities.

Specific of Mexican patriotism

- You ask me about Patriotism? What a stupid question! Don't you know that "El Patriotismo" is station of the subway?

Specific of ...

perhaps, more subsections are necessary here. Comments are corrections are welcomed inside my message.dima 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

What does denote mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.159.241 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete the sentence.

A patriot is.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.23.44 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased to American-style patriottism. As people have said before, there is a big difference between how people in Europe see patriottism, and how Americans do. This difference cannot be dealt with by finding some kind of middle way, but identifying that they are seperate things, and then dealing with these two styles seperately. The previous discussions about the positive or negative bias of this article are fed by the contributor's own bias. You may know that I am for loving one's country, but against pushing it in everybody's face. For example, this article says on the one hand that patriottism is a state of mind, a feeling, and on the other hand that patriottism 'relies heavily' on symbolism. Does it really? Or just in the USA? ... Besides the bias there may or may not be, this article is poorly written and really needs more resources. Qevlarr (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If the truth is unpopular does that mean it should be deleted?

I think WikiPedia should try and think a little forward. For instance, the article on Joseph McCarthy and the anti-communism craze in the 1950's would also have been viewed as biased during the 1950s simply because THE WHOLE SOCIETY WAS BIASED at that time. Now many years after it is possible to write the truth about it but shouldn't it as well have been written then without being called biased?

I think the U.S. is completely biased in itself. This should not stop us from writing the truth even though it is not popular now. Why do we have to wait 20 years before we can accurately judge the present situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.177.181 (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's truly ironic, you claim to combat bias by being bias yourself.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Jade rat

Image

Why is it that every time I remove the offensive Iranian president image it is constantly re-added (by the uploader I might add?) please could he explain his objections to the removal here? Capitana (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you are not the ultimate determiner of the graphic representation of the concept of Patriotism, of which this image does a good job showing. Because you are the only person edit-warring, and because you have now violated WP:3RR, which means if you remove it another time you will be blocked. Discuss your objections here. "It offends me" is not a good enough excuse (See WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --David Shankbone 16:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but I outlined my objections. I simply want you to explain why you think a picture of some nutter waving a "go to hell" sign is a good depiction of patriotism --Capitana (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no outlining of your objections. This is not some "nutter" but a patriotic (in her view) American protesting the President of Iran speaking at Columbia University because she sees him as Anti-American. It doesn't get much more patriotic than that, and the flag in her other hand makes this patriotic image clear. You may not like the phrasing "Go To Hell" (which, by the way, was the front page of the New York Post she cut out - so she is not the only "nutter") but that it assaults what are seemingly delicate sensibilities on your part doesn't mean you dictate for the rest of us what goes on there. --David Shankbone 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then let us agree to disagree. Perhaps an RFC would get a few more opinions --Capitana (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. But I would come up with a better line of reasoning than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that means actually raising arguments with reasoning. --David Shankbone 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so confrontational! I was simply suggesting it as a possible course of action in the future. --Capitana (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) totally uninvolved drive-by opinion here, but after reading the above discussion and the article, I cannot see a good reason to object to inclusion of the image. I can understand how it might be offensive to some (e.g., a "patriotic" Iranian), but the caption makes it very clear the context: this is this person's opinion. It is describing, not endorsing, and is very clear about that. It of course would be nice to have a picture depicting just as obvious a strong feeling without the possible offense, but in lieu of that the image seems appropriate. I do advise both previous discussants to reflect a little more before hitting Save Page; the above discussion is not without some unnecessary snarkiness. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

True..true, but I'm not Iranian - in fact I'm British. I still didn't particularly like seeing "go to hell not ground zero" directed to a (controversial) world leader who wished to pay his respects to terrorist victims. Perhaps GW Bush doesn't like Iran - but Iranians can still express sympathy can they not. --Capitana (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But so what? You don't like her opinion. There are plenty of photographs I take of people whose opinions I disagree with. Could you imagine how difficult it would be to build an encyclopedia if concepts we do not like are removed? Write the woman an open letter, but edit-warring (which is how this turned confrontational, especially since you were warring against two people) is not the way you should have handled this. If you wrote your MA dissertation on Wikipedia, as you claim, then you should know you ran afoul of our policies and guidelines, and were the one who made this issue "confrontational" by trying to force your way. --David Shankbone 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to weigh in regarding the current image. Not only is the image itself not a representation of its current caption, "American patriotism", but it is not even so much a representation of patriotism at all, but a representation of dislike of another country. That said, I'm removing the image and caption. On a personal note, I can tell you on good authority that hating another country is not an aspect of American patriotism. American patriotism is expressing your pride in your own country, not bashing others countries. And I think I know a little something about American patriotism. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The current (well, now previous) caption is a relatively recent modification. The caption previously read:

"The United States consistently ranks as one of the most patriotic nations, and Americans often hold strong opinions about other nations."

This doesn't suggest that this is a typical expression of American Patriotism, only that Americans are often patriotic, and often hold strong opinions about other nations (a fact which was backed up by a reference, before the caption was modified). Would reinstating the picture, with the older caption, or some even more neutral caption, be something people could agree to? James pic (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

P.s, even if it's agreed that that image is not suitable, I'd still like to include some sort of image showing a protest by a patriotic group. Perhaps this image:

from the Cedar revolution in Lebanon would be less controversial. It might also help represent a more "global perspective", as the page banner says it should. James pic (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that an image depicting protest should fall under the catagory of patriotism. I mean, the way I define patriotism is love of your own country, not hatred of someone else's. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Patriotic Songs

Where is the list of patriotic songs? Where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.160.91 (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article seems a bit off from being neutral. Half of the whole article is discussing problems with patriotism. 24.145.200.251 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How come discussing problems of patriotism affect neutrality of the article. Arjun (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the positive effects of patriotism aren't discussed along with the negative ones. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

America-centric

Why the American flag?

I don' t think "patriotism" is in dispute here, right? but this article is some kind of weird realm for a proxy war. that's why I put npov tag on.

person A does something. it is either in the interest of his country, perceived to be in that interest or intended to be in that interest. person B (let's say who is also from same country) says "hey, I take issue with 1.what you did 2.the way you are folding national interests into some interests that are perhaps of a non-national character, perhaps manipulating public opinion in the process". so, somehow then person B thinks either that 1.patriotism is has changed or 2.what passes for patriotism in the sphere of mainstream public communications and discourse has is now as good a definition as any. person B gets on wikipedia and either 1.wants to get his new definition out there, to inform the world about what is truly the case about what patriotism truly is, or 2.start some crap and see how his detractors will respond.

lastly, first lines of articles are huge. the opening section that precedes the TOC is so important. anything further down in a large article, honestly, I don't care as much. it is likely the average googler will not get there. let's say what patriotism is, not why we are mad at supporters of american military missions abroad, even if we are mad at those supporters, even if those supporters are adept at manipulating tobykeithism to their interests, especially with respect to electoral.. ok, now I'm going off on a thing. sorry.

it's a wikipedia article, not your soapbox. there are a million articles to sort out the facts of what you may be passionate about. I think only a few can fit on this page in an appropriate way. S*K*A*K*K 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Patriotic vs Political or Religous

The definition of patriotism is simple and correct in this context; the love of ones country and or countrymen/women. To drag anything political, war related, or external to the geographically identified location in the discussion (i.e. the particular country) only muddies the definition. Being patriotic spans all time, generations and civilizations. It began from the human tribe-like need for survival in groups, and we all know group dynamics! Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.106.174 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

Seriously guys the original word for patriot (used by the english) was and insult it meant Traitor holy how do you guys miss that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC) As the article stated the root of the word Patriot is countrymen not country or religion its not about nationalism,its about your fellow countryman, standing together in unison against any and all forces that threaten to destroy or enslave your fellow countryman.Weather that force is a government ,ruling class, religion,church, or social system.≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichael1977 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP MAKING THIS COUNTRY AND PERSON SPECIFIC!!

911 has nothing to do with the definition or explanation of patriotism. Patriotism is not an american ideal, its a global ideal. Americans are not the only patriots, though they are the only american patriots. start another page for american patriotism if you must.

Second, patriotism is not a love and devotion to one's country. A person can hate their country, but still be patriotic. In fact, this is inherent to patriotism. The Libian rebels come to immediate mind. They hate the country as is, yet are completely devoted to making it a better country in their eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.2.156 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey Validity?

If the survey is on a point scale of 1-4, how is Ireland at 5.7 on the scale?

--Information on Ireland and its level of Patriotism may need to be checked or updated?

Probably was vandalism, but the table is at the end of the ref I just fixed, it's around 3.7 in every year for which there are results. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tagging

There's the image, if that's the issue just change it. The bulk of the text isn't about the US and actually didn't see it anywhere. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Also cleared the breakage, thought at first it was on purpose but apparently the table classes break current wiki layout. Lycurgus (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

While the Globalize tag is completely spurious, apparently an attempt to purge any mention of the US, curiously ignoring other issues, it certainly could be expanded. To some extent the concept now has its proper cultural footprint more or less in its stubby kind of way, talking about countries at the core where the western nation state upon which it is centered. In larger cultural contexts this would be captured by relations between the individual and society in general whatever the unit, village, tribe, etc. This can be sourced and wind up in the lede as a refutation of this tagging if that's what's needed but why would anyone bother? It's just a lexical entry which is a likely snag for a lot of soapboxing which it's obvious the wiki process has more or less successfully deterred. The next stage, an expanded prosodic scholarly treatment of Patriotism in a world historical context is in my opinion a wiki bridge too far ATM. Be serious or at least use the right tags. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So normal increment here, clean-up and restructure, on the basis of the already substantial prior process; FTR in re the prior thread, yes any values in the tables over 4 is automatically vandalism. I found other vandalism too, in making figures 3.9 something. SFAIK the 3.7 something is the highest reached. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the flag (which is kind of undue too) might have caused me to add "USA" to the globalize tag, but the globalize template was rightly placed. The article only addresses topics somewhere around England, France, USA... and two lists. The article does need to be globalized. There's no world historical context, there's no mention of any types of issues or topics from many many major parts of the world. I think the tag should be placed back without adding any country name to it till these are resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, the article is already "globalized". My opinion is it's fine as it is. But the rational and correct posing of your complaint is that it needs to be expanded with the already tediously arrived at (before my involvement) global scope/orientation. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And while this isn't a forum, it's on-topic and to the point that people, most people, are trynna get away from this with the exception of right wing groups in various places. The era of globalization implies a cosmopolitan culture where other peoples are regarded as and welcomed as equals rather than alien, against us, and inferior. For this reason it may be hard to fill this out without concentrating on the history section or turning to backward looking groups like the BJP in India, Fidesz in Hungary, the British National Party, the GOP in the US, etc. in the present without going OR/synth on a kind of Democritus-like patriotism that doesn't as yet exist. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As you rephrased my objection to "expanded" (which also stands correct), the fact still remains that the article doesn't cover many topics without that expansion. That means it has to be globalized. I can understand if you might not be able to do that your self, but the purpose of the tag was to attract other editors who would. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added an appropriate tag, as top level expand is no longer permitted put it in appropriate place. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the expansion is needed is not mentioned in that tag... I suggest a globalize tag without mention of any country. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do sections for Pakistan and maybe India, Lanka, Bangladesh? I dislike milling on articles, I prefer to act, and I've already done enough here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Was planning to do it rather in a more general form... something related to Asia in general so as to keep proper weight. The globalize tag would have just attracted help... I don't see how it is bad for the article to have that tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno why the English Wiki is necessarily the one to have this. Looks like there's about 40 interwiki links. Maybe wait for the human interlingua, if there's no default reasoning better than the dominance of the Anglosphere (for why this article needs to have the comprehensive global treatment, why the interwiki links don't suffice). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This was not about the dominance of anglosphere primarily, rather about the missing information from other parts and cultures. Interwikilinks dont compensate for this lack. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, my point is if there is a lack, why is it here? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the point... due to lack of participation.. hence the tag to invite the readers to participate. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There's now a communications breakdown. I have asked "why here?" and you repeat the same thing not saying why the English article is the right place. I take it from your user page English is not your mother tongue. To be clear, why does this article need the globalize tag but the Urdu, Hindi, and Mandarin pages, for example, don't? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok... I thought that answer was simple. They do. But I'm not active on those wikipedias (atleast yet). I've not seen those articles but if there's such an issue there... they do need this tag too per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Generally the English speaking world is over represented on English wikipedia due to the obvious hence having a systematic bias. Given that the English speaking world includes South Asia and some other regions (even though its not their mother tongue), this will directly be an article with missing information about them while having systematic bias against the non English speaking areas. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I can agree that either South Asia is part of the English speaking world or that the English speaking world is overrepresented in the English wiki. In this time while I haven't looked at it, I would assume OTHERCRAPEXISTS is operative and there's no lang that carries a burden of responsibility of representing the others. Respect your differing opinion on this. Of course on the basis of numbers alone, if such a lang were to be chosen it would be Chinese. There's a curious semantic rightness to having this particular subject be in the state it is in across all the wikis and any content to be developed is probably already in other (English) articles 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, South Asia might not be among native speakers but it surely is among the areas with English as educational language. The related article on wikipedia represents the same. It will actually be inconsistent to say other wise unless if you dispute that too. Anyway, the point is... there is missing content about other cultures which this article needs. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No I don't in any way dispute that English is the primary European language in the former British Empire of India. I've already suggested above that you add material for that region so I don't think any further input from me is needed. I've simply asked why does the English article bear this burden when none of the others do, and why is globalize rather than the tag I've placed the appropriate one. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think you understand my point now. Other wikipedias do bear the same burden and editors there should be taking care of those articles (I assume it was not an argument that since other wikipedias have stub articles this one should not get the burden too). Expand tag is good, but globalize is more specific. I'm adding back the tag since at the moment we're both not ready to add information but agree that it is needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No I don't agree, stating that FTR, although it's clear above. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics of patriotism

Acoording to the article the more prople say they are proud of their country the more patriotic is that Country. Beware that being proud of your country doesn't mean to be patriotic . Patriots or Nationalist are people that are proud when their countries (let's say US) kills people (let'say about 2000) abroad(let's say Libya) to defend national interest. If my country doesn't do that and I am proud of it i'm not the same as the aforementioned Nationalist or Patriots like a person proud of saving a poorman's day by giving him something to eat or moneys is not the same as a person who is proud of having killed another person for his personal gain (and there are a lot). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.158.44 (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)