Category talk:Scholars of nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Misleading category[edit]

This category is almost as misleading as Category:Concepts (nationalism studies). Would, say, Habermas or Said really see themselves as researchers in "nationalism studies," however much those who do see themselves that way use his work? I mean, heck, why not add (say) Karl Marx while we're at it? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 08:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Karl Marx never wrote anything on nationalism. Please read the description of the category: "This category includes people who have published research on nationalism or related issues." I think you are mistaking the study of nationalism, which everyone I've listed in this category has engaged in, with its promotion (which only some have). – User:01011000 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Marx never wrote "on nationalism or related issues"?! Come on... You should see how elastic you've made this category. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this would probably be better either a) as a stand-alone list or b) (better still) integrating these folk within the article on Nationalism studies. Really, a category is unhelpful. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Marx occasionally made casual reference to nationality, but he never wrote on it or nationalism directly (the description should probably read 'closely related', though, since many of the main characteristics of modernity are 'related' to nationalism). Later Marxists like Lenin and Stalin, however, had a lot to say about the 'nationalities question', and it would be appropriate to include them in a list of authors who have written on nationalism. There is also no question that Habermas and Said should be included; Habermas's work on constitutional patriotism and European integration, and Said's work on Orientalism and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, for example, are clearly part of this field (among others).
In this case, while I agree a list would be a good option, I think it should compliment rather than replace the category. I hadn't intended it to indicate the self-identification of the researcher but, if that is how it is going to be interpreted, I suppose it should be limited to those people who do identify themselves as specialists in the field, instead of including all those who have made a contribution to it. – User:01011000 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)