Merge with Democracy building
There is a suggestion on the table that Democracy building be merged with Nation-building. I'm against that, primarily because democracy building is a popular news topic with its own stream of validity, and the nation-building article is crummy at best. Let's write something of value for democracy building, and consider merging nation-building that way. - Freechild 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
well, i don't really get you. Maple21:21 2 April 2007
Bad idea, keep them separate as they ARE separate ideas (Hitler's regime in Germany was doubtlessly undemocratic, but definitely represented nation-building). Same with practically every European country in the 1800s.184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- 'Nation-building' is not the same thing as 'democracy-building', nor is it the same thing as 'state-building', which is what people often mean when they use the term (particularly in discussions of American foreign policy). The first refers to a social category; the second to a form of governance; the third to a set of institutions and their capacity to be effective. This article hints at nation-building's potential to support state-building, but doesn't really explain anything clearly. The whole thing should be rewritten from scratch. – SJL 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have been written from a very specific and narrow point of view, namely, 'the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy'.
This seems to assume nation building is something imposed by the American military. And yet, the classic locus of nation building is Africa, where newly independent nations with a colonial past sought to create nations where none existed before. The problem, of course, being that the colonial powers had ignored ethnic lines when they carved out political units, so somehow disparate 'tribes' had to be knitted into something called a nation. I can't see that it necessarily involves 'the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy'.
Does this article need to be rewritten to reflect this?
Bathrobe 04:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting comment. Obviously, User:Grutness added the line you quoted in reference to the invasion of Iraq. Other than the intro paragraph which is very general, and references to specific historical examples, most of the article is paraphrasing James Dobbins. This isn't very encyclopedic. Whatever you want to write based on your knowledge of the recent nation-building efforts in Africa could make for a good addition to the article. -- Mathieugp 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to do a major rewrite, but that first paragraph needs a note inserted. As it stands, it is quite incorrect. Bathrobe 09:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I did more than I said I would. However, the paragraph about ethnic tensions and disintegration is perhaps superfluous (or needs to be pared down).
Bathrobe 13:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree this article is awful - it shows little understanding of the area, context or issues. I think it should be deleted. As state-building is increasingly recognized as the term of art, other than in the US context, this article should be submerged into the state-building article (what few elements of it that are correct).
who is bathrobe????????????? maple 21:23 2 April 2007
POV all over the place
I'm tempted to delete 90% of the content of this article as a combination of original research and POV. Horrendous. Any improvements - e.g. citations - would be eagerly welcomed. Vizjim 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that citations are much needed. Some statements are generalizations of phenomenons that are not universal and the tone of the article is not neutral at all. Also, the first sentence, which I wrote, was modified and its meaning is now changed. User:Fsotrain09 added "especially a foreign one." at the end of the sentence, possibly after reading the contents of the current article which want to deal with the specific cases of colonial nation-building. Maybe we could create a section on Nation-building in Post-Colonial Africa? -- Mathieugp 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The last few paragraphs are crap. "Will increase the violence there". Somehow, I don't think future predictions crouched in political ideology have even the potential to be NPOV. I would hesitate to describe a political platform that's widely disagreed with all over the world as 'an inescapeable necessity'. I watched the 2000 american campaigns pretty closely, and I don't recall Clinton ever promising to increase violence. Infact, he had reached his term limit by that point, and didn't run! I've seen the term 'nation building' used to discuss what the author is talking about, and it certainly deserves mention, but I think those paragraphs are beyond saving. I'm deleting them. - Kyle543 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
wat is UTC, by all gods?????????????? maple 21:24 2 April 2007
What is the role of "nation building" as a party platform for the United States electoral races. I mean, election day was just today and nation building has been a major electoral plank/platform for individuals runner-ups for quite a while. How is the United States involved in this political-science process?Signor Pastrini 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
why only those countries????????????????????? why not include other countries??????????????
Maple 21:17,2 April 2007 (???)
psssssssssssst to everyone------
Maple & maple are the same user. Maple/maple 21:26 2 April 2007
I removed most of the information inserted by Stevertigo in March. The reason is that the information he added was totally at odds with the content of the article.
The main problem is the difference between nation building as it has been used for several decades, and the euphemism adopted by recent American governments for intervention in other countries and efforts to set up new governments.
If people wish to completely rewrite the nation-building article so that it bears only the more recent political meaning, please go ahead, with proper arguments. But the worst thing that can be done is to tack on information that is completely different in meaning and usage from the article itself. This is purely sloppy editing. (The other problem is the completely POV attitude adopted in the tacked on sections).
In the process of removing Stevertigo's material, I've transferred some of it to the article on State building, which is an alternative term for things like George Bush's intervention in Iraq. There is a proposal that the two articles should be merged, with a discussion page. Please refer to that page and add your comments if you feel that the two articles should be merged.
Note: I am somewhat disgruntled with Stevertigo's changes, not because I can't bear other people disagreeing with me on the meaning of nation-building, but because his edits were so destructive of the logic, flow, and thrust of the article. If someone can do a decent rewrite of the article, which many observers seem to feel that it needs, please go ahead. But please make a decent job of it, don't just tack on stuff that goes at a tangent to the rest of the article!
Bathrobe 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The two article should definitely be merged. I'll add this one to my to-do list.--Gloriamarie 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge With NATO
There is a suggestion on the table that the Nation-building article be merged with NATO.
Bad idea, keep them separate as they are separate ideas. Same with practically every European country that eats the krupuk. I'm against that, primarily because democracy building is a popular topic with its own questions of validity, and the krupukocracy is crummy at best. Let's write something of value for democracy building, and consider merging nation-building that way.
Is Nation-building the same as robot building? Perhaps those articles could be merged under the robot building.
well, i don't. 'Nation-building' is not the same thing as 'democracy-building', nor is it the same thing as 'state-building', which is what people often mean when they use the term (particularly in discussions of all-American foreign policy). The first refers to a Jerry Falwell social category; the second to a form of misgovernance; the third to a set of institutions and their capacity to mass produce unthinking robots. This article hints at nation-building's potential to support state-building, but doesn't really explain robots clearly. The whole thing should be left to the People to decide between themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)