Italy[edit]

Isn't Italy the epicenter of the Identitarian movement alongside France? That's what mainstream scholarship indicates[1]. The Identity and Democracy party in the European Parliament is something like 80% Italian and was founded by members of Lega Nord[2].

Yet this article dedicates only one measly line to Italy in a section titled other Europeans. You don't even have a section for Italy. There's a gigantic section for the United Kingdom where the ID movement is weak, politically powerless and virtually defunct in the post-Brexit era. The impression one gets from reading this is that this movement originated in France and Northern Europe and then spread elsewhere, when it actually originated in Italy and France before spreading to Northern and Central Europe.

I suggest a massive revision of this piece right down to the way the page is structured. Preferably by editors who understand the subject a lot better.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confused article? / Undue weight? / Badly written lede?[edit]

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but I'm confused how what this article describes differs in any way from... just being normal? Ethnic groups claiming ownership of their own culture and own countries is the norm in the world, not the exception, from european countries to south american countries to asian countries to african countries. How does what is described in this article differ from these, and how is it not undue weight? Or is it possible the lede should be rewritten to better reflect the content and make it clear to the reader how the content differs from normal behaviours common throughout the world? - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:B8B4:3A7A:DA0D:704A (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We reflect the worldview of reliable sources. No one disagree that it exists. Also cultural and/or ethnic homogeneity is not the same thing as advocating for an ethno-state, and you seem to be confusing the two. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is how we present those reliable sources. Since articles aren't merely links to reliable sources but large bodies of text contextualizing these reliable sources, there is always the potential for mistakes to be made. I'm wondering very strongly whether that is the case here. Looking up "ethno-state," it seems that article lends further credence to what I said, since it, too, describes how some of its elements are common worldwide.
Looking at the lede, it describes it as the idea of ethnic groups having ownership over their lands and culture (the view held by most people worldwide), then some history, then a list of some of the most common beliefs held throughout the world such as localism and ethnopluralism together with some very obscure ones such as remigration (sloppy writing?) followed by a little more history and common views (cultural homogeneity) and ending with some more history. This seems confusingly written, with aspects that could mark (and thereby differentiate) the concept written almost like after-thoughts and given the same (or less!) weight as far more common ideas and aspects, which makes for a confusing read and might leave somebody wondering what is so special about this concept in the end. I think the lede could be greatly improved in this area. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:B8B4:3A7A:DA0D:704A (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"cultural and/or ethnic homogeneity is not the same thing as advocating for an ethno-state" Attempts to create this homogeneity typically result in persecution of minorities, expulsions, or ethnic cleansing. Most countries have linguistic or religious minorities which do not want to assimilate to the "mainstream". Dimadick (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm uncertain how this pertains. The vast majority of countries do most of the things described as marking the "identitarian movement," such as "having ownership over their lands and culture," being "localist" and "ethnopluralism," making the lede ineffective, like I described, at explaining to the reader what the "identitarian movement" is about and how it differs from normal views. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:40A6:6636:9DB6:BCE0 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're just repeating yourself, which is not helpful. You're conflating a specific movement with entire countries, and completely ignoring that fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideological forebears[edit]

I think it's misleading to talk about the Conservative Revolution in the intro. Like other alt-right-type movements, the intellectual lineage is from mid-century fascism to various post-war far-right thinkers (Benoit etc.) who tried to formulate a version of white nationalism that wouldn't look like nazism. But the boundaries between this kind of far-right politics, neofascism, and neo-nazism are very porous. Prezbo (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here's the odd thing, it probably isn't descended from there, because I came to think about this independently from anything related to naziism, and purely out of a concern for the safety of human rights. Moreover I am a third worlder, thinking about it as an ideal policy in order to protect a bastion of freedoms. It seems to me that it probably came independently out of concern for the real rate of crime, fanaticism and cultural replacement on the ground. 180.241.144.247 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories