Talk:Nation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bravo

I am very happy to see this page being accurate in the facts and reasonable in its interpretation of the word and its meaning. Countless times did I have to explain that nation is synonym with people first and foremost. Thank you very much to the intelligent people who wrote this article. I hope this will help spread the knowledge that the majority of the peoples on this planet do not enjoy the freedom of living in a State they democratically govern. -- Mathieugp

It makes you happy, but that doesn't mean it is accurate. This "nation" page has been hijacked by poly-sci weenies. Yes, defining "nation" to be "people" could be a good idea, and especially convenient for those who wish to use words such as "nation-state". However, it is not how the word is commonly used, and it is not the sole definition of the word in the dictionary; it is just one narrow sense.

I agree. A nation is another name for a country. Nearly everyone uses this definition. In most dictionaries this sense is usually the first. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nation and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation 124.171.129.233 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the material that is here. However, the page should be altered to add up front that the word "nation" is quite commonly used to mean "country", and that this page would like to explore a narrow but useful definition of the word.

My Oxford Dictionary includes the phrase "forming a state or inhabiting a territory" which is notably absent here. Some "nationalist" movements would prefer to leave this phrase out of the definition.

Also, I have a problem with the word "people". Again according to my dog-eared Oxford, "people" can mean "community, tribe, RACE, nation". Fourtildas 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

...As in "A 'country' is a community of people created by a national ideology, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed?" But "country" is the equivalent in English of pays; it invariably refers to a territory. The article is perhaps too accurate to suit everyone. --(Wetman) 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Last but not Least, a nation as a group of people can include just those who life in the same territory as Wetman said... Herle King 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition of the word "nation" given on this page. A nation is a collective of a people who share a common national history. A community, on the other hand, is just a group of individuals. The synopsis given on this page was clearly written by individualists and I applaud those who show its inaccuracy. Garrett365 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A word on origins

"treat nations as a relatively late human social grouping. The most widely quoted theories place their origin in the late 18th and 19th century,"

Is it relevant to mention the references to the nation (or the idea of the nation) in history? The nation has been mentioned in works as far back as Sun Tzu's Art of War (chapter 2) for example. "Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril."

Or the numerous references to nation & 'peoples' in the Bible? Or the growth of nationhood in Japan as early as the 3rd century?

Remember that "nation" in Old Testament contexts is being employed in 16-17th century translations for a Hebrew word that took for granted genetic affiliations, I believe. One would also like to hear what word "nation" is translating in the Sun Tzu text, so that we might decide whether modern concepts of "nation" are being superimposed there too. Are there any texts to support such an early concept of "nation" in pre-Nara Japan?--Wetman 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposition of change

Since there are many attributes which can are used to define a nation, I propose we take those the United Nations and state it as such in the article. The United Nations generally defines a nation as "a human group who shares some or all of the following attributes: customs, culture, religion, institutions, language and history." What do you think? Mathieugp 23:10, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The United Nations is an assembly of political states. Any UN definition in this sphere must be a political compromise, for all modern political states claim to speak for nations. Wikipedia's several articles are on a clearer track than this proposed definition, but the UN definition might be analyzed: for a start, from what UN source does the quote actually come? --Wetman 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand that a state is the leadership of a nation and hence forth lead the nation to membership in the UN and thus making the nation a member of the UN.76.186.56.36 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"United Nations" is a misnomer--should be United States [of the World], and since its 192 members claim authority over virtually all of the earth, its definition might just well be self-serving. If you're not in the club, you don't count. Canada recognizes over 600 indigenous First Nations within its claimed border, yet the UN recognizes only one state, Canada, and Canada has just gone on record objecting to the U.N. Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Interestingly, the most vocal opponents of that policy are the British imperial colonies: USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They have the most at stake, being occupiers of the territory of other nations.

Doctoral Thesis for reference:

Sovereignty Challenged - The Changing Status and Moral Significance of Territorial Boundaries

The confusion between "nations", "peoples", and "States" is intentionally caused by politicians who want their domination of those around them to be justified by claiming the Governments represent the will of "the people" or the "nation". Nations are recognized BY THEIR MEMBERS and generally by their neighbors as well as separate peoples. While some States are also Nations, most have lost such an identity. In the USA, "nation" has come to mean anyone who the Government wants to govern. Citizenship is conveyed by States, not Nations. It should not be the function of Wikipedia to legitimize every State that claims nationhood. People should know that claiming something does not make it true, even if the claimant has an Army.

--Zerasmus (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"A nation may be defined as 'A portion of mankind [that] are united among themselves by common sympathies that do not exist between them and any others – which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be governed by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively' (Mill 1861/1991: 391).

Mill, John Stuart, 1861/1991. Considerations on Representative Government. Reprinted in Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government. Edited by H. B. Acton. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Everyman’s Library.

http://www.statsvitenskap.uio.no/fag/polit/disputas/fulltxt/FullThesisAnneJulieSemb.pdf

Qureus1 10:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The nation is a whole. A whole is a logical, mereolical concept. Wholes are sets, ordered and hierarchical wholes and collections. When people are trying to define nation, they refer to these different types of wholes, and also when they defines social groups. They are not aware of these wholes but try mostly to define "belonging characreristics: language etc, but what they describe is the set form of wholes, but there are other forms of wholes also with the same meaning that can be claimed to be the nation. The problem is linking the concept to the political power, or the establishment of the nation. The nation is defined when all men take control over the public sector making it a subset og the whole. All will tule. The whole is to rule. This is exemplified in the French and the American revolutions. It is a collection establishes itself. In society we need peace. Leibniz distinguished between different levels of peace: ars nedciendi, tolerantia civilis, tolerantia ecclesoastica and unio (eirene). Society is in tolerantia ecclesiastica, this is how to define society. 08.05.2006 StaraStara

Imagined Community

It seems as if there should be some consideration of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, in which he states that the definition of the nation is "an imagined political community" and that "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-conciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist," (6). Thus, nations are not natural occurences of human collectives but instead percieved communities of people.

Someone has inserted this rather precious conceptualization— without linking it to Benedict Anderson— as if it were common usage. Would someone more knowledgable than I please disambiguate this specialized usage in our entry, and provide the Anderson reference at References?? --Wetman 14:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the lede sentence, an Imagined Community as a political concept is perilously close to meaningless. I take as my starting point Thomas Paine's concept (Rights of Man) that "sovereignty of a government lies in the people (the nation)". This is the root of multiple nations such as the US and France, so it is not just academic.

Here is my counterexample to show the speciousness of Imagined Community as a nation: Clearly, Star Trek is a work of fiction, a work of imagination. Yet the current lede sentence would also apply to a 'Star Trek nation', which is not a political concept; rather it is a hobbyist or fandom concept.

The article would be improved if the lede were changed to apply to real things like our current Nation-States, and still exclude fanciful groups. Right now the lede's scope is so broad as to be useless. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose this definition as a replacement for the current one: "A nation is a human community characterized by the consciousness of its historical or cultural identity, and often by it linguistic or religious unity". Then we can say that a nation generally shares some or all of these attributes: customs, culture, religion, institutions, language and history. Any objections? -- Mathieugp 18:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a good definition, especially, since it is general and does not need the existence of a State or common territory (which is something more political). Moreover, other ones should stay, of course. Definitions as the ones given in the UN should absolutely be in the text and it should be remembered that the concept varies very much from place to place and from one ideological plane to the other.

The definiton above is general and lets for example complex definitions possible, as the one that a Nation can be divided in many Nations or that it can be formed out of many Nations. Such characterics of a Nation exist in some definitions and can be in some cases constructive (not always, of course).- N.M.B.R.Nbez 11:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above definition omits the nation's characterization of its genetic identity, which is the essential element in the evolution of the modern idea. --Wetman 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Vagueness

"The idea of a nation remains somewhat vague, in that there is generally no strict definition for exactly who is considered to be a member of any particular nation." ...and after all our hard work here! Let's further clarify the terms and remove this waffle. --Wetman 14:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

attempted to disambiguate "nation (ethnos)" from nation (country) whenever I saw the quoted term "nation", which appeared to bear some other connotation. Ancheta Wis 12:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what, my brothers about the native american indians or aborigines of an native continent?

"many nations exist without a state, such as the Kurds, Assyrians, Gibraltarian and the native American nations" is in the text. --Wetman 12:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"state-nations" as opposed to nation-states?

"This sort of entity is sometimes referred to in political theory as a "state-nation", where citizens form a common identity because of their membership in the state. The key distinction is that a nation-state is a state formed by people with a common identity, while a state-nation is composed of individuals who form a common identity because of their membership in the state."

If this distinction has no other name, and if it were in use, it would be used somewhere that would provide a meaty quote. Otherwise it has a bogus feel to it... -Wetman 21:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of a citation for this usage? --Wetman 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist bias throughout the text

The first sentence quite correctly asserts that the idea of nations is a doctrine = ideology/system of beliefs (which implies, by no means an objective fact). In spite of this, from the third sentence on it is pretended, by pervasive use of the indicative mood, that nations exist by nature, that national identity is an innate "sense of belonging" and not something attributed to people by societies and states. That it could be the latter isn't even mentioned. Any reference to the reasonable constructivist view mentioned above seems to have been eradicated by nationalists. This article is an extremely POV mess. I wouldn't know where to start so I didn't edit it.--84.188.173.232 22:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Were it not in the indicative mood, it would be in the conditional and subjunctive: this were a frivolous quibble, if it were substantiable. Once the idea's origins and its pre-suppositions have been laid out, normal discourse proceeds normally. --Wetman 02:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The constructivist view is itself a doctrine, and it is often used in a political context, to justify the existence of a nation state, especially if it is disputed. Something like this, for example: 'Canada is not a nationalist boot camp, why no, Canada is a peaceful community of people who want to live as a community, and have taken the maple leaf and the caribou as symbols of their identification with each other in this community, so there is no reason at all for Quebec to be independent, and if you try we will lock you up'. So although the article should indeed be careful about suggesting that nations are an eternal fixed reality, there is no reason to take Benedict Anderson as the last word.Ruzmanci 11:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

To say nothing of the 600+ indigenous First Nations Canada 'recognizes' but for which it refuses to allow autonomy or sovereignty. Qureus1 16:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, I made one small change which I'd like to explain to anybody out there. The Czech and Polish nations - I added 'various' before Polish and changed 'Czech' to Bohemian. Although the Czech republic and Poland may be well established modern European countries with their own background and paraphernalia etc, there is nothing beyond modern propaganda from harliners in both countries to suggest that these nations existed centuries ago as they do now, in fact only the opposite is apparent: people often said that the Czechs and Slovaks were never one and the same nation, one reason for their break-up in 1993 from the 20th century Eastern European state of Czechoslovakia. For what people call nations, this may be true. On that premise it must also be said that even these subnations can divide further, and a denomination of Czech peoples shows that this country is mainly composed of Bohemians and Moravians BOTH of whom have a seperate past history and identity, as do the Silesians who are a small nation caught in a triangle of international frontiers, Czechia; Slovakia; Poland. Since Czechs and Slovaks (and Poles for that matter) are ALL based on Slavic descent, and so too are Silesians and Moravians, there can be no conceivable theory to support that Moravians and Bohemians, whilst not being each other are still Czech, but Slovaks remain different, either they are all one and the same, or they are all different. As for the Poles, well Polands borders have chopped and changed incredibly over the centuries, what is considered Polish is that where a governing power is in place, calling itself 'Polska/Poland etc', where-as Poland too comprises dozens of subnational communities past and present (Slovincians, Kashubians, Silesians, Pomeranians, Mazurians etc.) Curiously enough, the word 'Poland' is based on the word 'Pole' (cognate with English 'field' {see the 'f'+'l' and 'p'+'l' connection}) yet the only known nation to include the term 'Pol' in its title is the Poleszuks who are another Slavic subnation who live on both sides of the Belarussian/Ukranian borders (who both incidently are ALSO made up of subnations). Celtmist 1.10.05

Oxford Dictionary of Current English

The Oxford scholars have studied how the word is currently used and understood: "community of people of mainly common descent, history, language, etc., forming a State or inhabiting a territory."

Only one meaning in the "Current English" dictionary. If someone has the full OED maybe they could quote some non-current usages - I think it once meant "tribe" or "ethnicity".

Some ethnic/religious movements invent their own meaning of "Nation" to push their claims to "Ancestral/historic/promised Homelands/Fatherlands".

tribe", "ethnicity", "mainly common descent": not really that much disagreement there. A brief note on OED's report would surely be a welcome addition to the article, I think we'd all agree. --Wetman 07:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, the concept of "diaspora" is not in complete accordance with the definition of Nation given by the Oxford Dictionary, since the concept does not need the people of a Nation neither to form a State nor to inhabit one single territory (not even a majority of the people to live in one territory). Moreover, I know there are also definitions of a Nation having "Subnations", as is the case in the Spanish Constitution. It refers to a Spanish Nation (indivisible) and to nationalities that form it.-N.M.B.R.Nbez 10:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

All modern political states, including Spain, claim to represent nations, as in "United Nations". Thus in the particular case of Spain an imaginary category "sub-nation" must be constructed. Spain is a state. Spain is not a nation-state. Galicians, Basques, Catalans are nations. Other subdivisions within Spain, like Estremadura, currently wish to be accorded comparable "autonomous community" status. These local issues might best be discussed in the entry Politics of Spain. --Wetman 19:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Spain is a state composed of the Spanish nationalities, that's plural, not singular. One could call these nationalities the greater Spanish nation, however that is very inaccurate, for example, the Basques generally do not consider themselves part of a greater Spanish nation, or greater French nation for that matter either. The Basques are a people (nation) who live primarily in the states (geographic regions) of Spain and France, more precisely they live in the Pyrenees that form the modern Spanish-French state border.

A better example would be the UK. Three and a third nations in one unitary state. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the etimology section correct?

Just trying to help here. I may have missed the point, as I am no expert in the term myself. The English Wikipedia etimology section claims that

• "The first recorded use of the word "nation" was in 968, when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting Nicephorus II, etc."

My question is, when Cicero (106 B.C.–43 B.C.) mentions nation ("natio") in his Oratio in Catilinam Altera Ad Populum (Second Oration Against Catiline) in 63 B.C. isn't that a good enough use of the term "nation" that both (1) predates Liutprand, bishop of Cremona and (2) indicates that it was a well established term by 63 b.C.?

I quote Cicero in Latin and in an English translation published in 1906 and available on the web:

• Nulla est enim natio, quam pertimescamus, nullus rex, qui bellum populo Romano facere possit. Omnia sunt externa unius virtute terra marique pacata; domesticum bellum manet, intus insidiae sunt, intus inclusum periculum est, intus est hostis. Cum luxuria nobis, cum amentia, cum scelere certandum est. Huic ego me bello ducem profiteor, Quirites; suscipio inimicitias hominum perditorum; quae sanari poterunt, quacumque ratione sanabo, quae resecanda erunt, non patiar ad perniciem civitatis manere. Proinde aut exeant aut quiescant aut, si et in urbe et in eadem mente permanent, ea, quae merentur, expectent.

• For there is no nation for us to fear,—no king who can make war on the Roman people. All foreign affairs are tranquilized, both by land and sea, by the valor of one man. Domestic war alone remains. The only plots against us are within our own walls,—the danger is within,—the enemy is within. We must war with luxury, with madness, with wickedness. For this war, O citizens, I offer myself as the general. I take on myself the enmity of profligate men. What can be cured, I will cure, by whatever means it may be possible. What must be cut away, I will not suffer to spread, to the ruin of the republic. Let them depart, or let them stay quiet; or if they remain in the city and in the same disposition as at present, let them expect what they deserve.

D walker 03:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had the same feeling about the section, so I reworked it, using another quote from Cicero.

-- Ziusudra 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV from the get go.

One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations

How has it been determined to be one of the most influential doctrine?--Eddylyons 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That also just doesn't make sense, is nationhood really a doctrine? I'd consider it the status of an established government, there is the doctrine of nationalism, but a nation itself is no more a doctrine than electricity.

Need a better intro. The first sentence should contain some sort of definition for starters. Nurg 06:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I really think it is one of the most influential doctrines (that humans are divided in nations)! And there are esays about it, some that state the nation as something natural and bound to the person, but that this was forgotten for some time (and even that these nations are almost static) and some that state that the concept of nation itself was formed out of nationalism, i.e. that nationalistic movements tend to create nations and a common national historyt hat did not exist before.

As I know, the concept of the nation and nationalism has ben widely used for political purposes (good and bad) and established governments have used it to gain force or to try to get a basis of existence, especially in hard times. In this way, long-existing states dissappeared (not all well-functioning and even democratic regimes have to claim to rule over a nation and the population does not have to feel they form a nation to feel bounded to this state and its people), too, following a doctrine of exclusive nationalism and of exclusive nations, and even lead to wars in order to "protect the space of the ruling nation or of the nation that should possess the state or region". On the other hand, inclusive nationalism lead to wars in order to "re-unite" the nation (one extreme case is the national socialism of Nazi-Germany).

Further, nationalism, as something that creates the feeling of a nation, is something that appeared in Western Europe and was in that way unknown in other places before. What existed were loyalty bounds that united people in dominance and solidary unions. However, when these bindings started to fall apart (there was the ending of the Middle Age and the 30-Years War in Germany, the Turk invasion and the formation of the absolutistic states as a consequence of all these) is when the concept of the nation began to take force.--Nbez 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC) N.M.B.R.

The definition of 'a nation' is among the most controversial political issues, see Zionism. It has a separate section now.Paul111 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good... but it's still not a "doctrine". Per Wikipedia: Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. How is the concept of a "nation" a doctrine by this definition?--Eddylyons 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Zionism

I asked for a peer review of the Zionism article, where the 'what-is-a-nation' issue is very relevant: see here Wikipedia:Peer review/Zionism/archive1.Paul111 17:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish nation

This there should be a section of this as it is a particularly contentious issue where it is a misnomer in a religion vs. a nation, which is not the same. nevertheless, the controversy bears notability.Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ethnic groups

I've just added {{ethnic group}} to this article. There is no intention of implying that nations equal ethic groups. However, the scope of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ethnic groups is broad enough to include nations; to quote from its statement of scope, "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide guidelines for articles about ethnic groups and nationalities independent of writing about nation-states." Hope this will be OK with everyone. Please let me know if you feel that there is a different, existing WikiProject with which this would more appropriately be associated. - Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations Vs. Ethnic Groups

Having read the debate(s) above I feel that the existing definition of a nation does not make a clear distinction from an ethnic group. I believe adding something stating "A nation seeks some form of political self-governance while an ethnic group seeks cultural recogition." This is a more widely accepted defintion of a nation vs. ethnic group (Guibernau [1995], Billig [1995] amongst others) and accounts for Welsh nationalism vs. Cornish\Southern USA cultural recognition.

62.136.170.79 11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)mattthac (can't sign in on this computer) 11:49 27 February 2007

Agree completely with above post ..

I have seen a definition of " Nation " as " a Polity that is not subject to the jurisdiction of any other Polity " . ( sorry I can't give references ).

To me this is the only use of the term which fits the modern concept of the term Nation .

In the modern world ethnicity , common culture or genetic type etc. are practicaly irrelevant to the concept of Nation . For example Condoleza Rice shares basicaly none of those with George Bush but both are American Nationals .

Depends on the definition. See ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. For instance, non-immigrant Austrians are Germans, though they have a separate state. Volga Germans are German as well, even though they speak a different language. Personally, I believe that your usage of "nation" is just a byword for "country". Condoleeza Rice and George Bush are both citizens of the US. --Humanophage (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my Nation there are approximately 150 plus cultural groups but all make up one single Nation . All owe allegience to and come under the jurisdiction of a single overarching Polity .

== Articles like this one give Wikipedia it's low reputation. "Real or imagined"? Shall we just leave it at "Imagined"?

Lejon 30 APRIL 07

About the reference tag at under "nationalism

I thought that the one only need references when there was a chance of anyone disputing something. If there is, it would be a lot better to put a "fact"-tag at the disputed phrase, wouldn't it? A very quick read now did not give me anything to obect to. I think the tag should be removed unless there is something to dispute. DanielDemaret 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Naturalization

I think the following wording should be removed from the Nationalism section:

If the nation was defined only by citizenship, then naturalised citizens would be accepted as equal members of the nation, and that is not always the case. Citizenship may itself be conditional on a citizenship test, which usually includes language and/or cultural knowledge tests, see Life in the United Kingdom test

This is just plain doublespeak. The test in question is a filter on who may obtain citizenship and not something that keeps naturalized citizens from being accepted and treated as equals. JrFace (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly wrong. It pertains to nationality, not to nation. Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also Deletion

I deleted the wiki-link to the page for List of Divided Nations. The page has a lot of problems and even the original author says he washes his hands of it. I think its fate needs to be decided before/if it is listed here. --Eddylyons (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent introduction

I really like the introduction this article. Well done! Aaker (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. A "nation" is not an influential doctrine. Such a statement makes no sense. Think "Monroe Doctrine". Look up WP's definition and tell me how "nation" meets that criteria. Then tell me how it is influential. --Eddylyons (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Share a common identity"

What's that suppost to mean? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's different in each "nation", as the article says so often.--Wetman (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised opening paragraphs

My revisions and footnotes are intended to make the text more specific, more pointed and accurate in these axiomatic statements, and to support statements with examples and footnotes. I'm hoping the edits will inspire further improvements, and deter the jejune deleters and taggers. --Wetman (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

nation defined

this totally deviated from the defition of a nation, the political meaning of its roots, to what it has come to mean. Certainly this should be included, in the lead even, but it is not the crux of the lead. the definition, in academia and plenty of tracts and volumns and columns on what a nation is can be found in a whole host of places. (offline, i've not tried online) Any volume talking about the nation-state and it's origins will start off defining a nation and a state.

It may very well be that a "nation is a human cultural and social community," but not to include something about ethnicity or cultural homogeniatity is deviating from the truth of the definition.

I don't have the books in front of me, but if you see the various Indian nations in the Americas or the Celtic nations, some idea of a nation would come about. Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting an External link -- NationStates.net?

Hi, I had one link that I suggest adding. To run down the usual background check. I'm not affiliated with it in any way-- nor have I been paid by them nor will I be. Nor do they even know who I am... etc... etc... :-) but I think it might help readers. NationStates.net runs a small (free) simulator tool that helps to show users some of the complexities of running a functioning country. I haven't used it in a number of years but I feel after all this time it changed my entire outlook on politics. It teaches the complexities that nations face by making you a leader of a country. You are then propositioned with 1 piece of various legislation once a day and asked to take a vote. Through your actions over time it will build a demographic of the kind of nation you have. Whether you have a Free nation(democratic), not free nation (dictatorship), semi-free(middle of the road) etc. CaribDigita (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

this whole article reads like a personal essay

I tagged it for POV, and worldwide view. Will try to get some more historic information in there in the future. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is rather overkill. If the article really did read like an essay we have a more appropriate template for that: {{essay-like}}. Please explain why you think the articles biased and lacks worldview. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

POV mainly because close to no citations are given. The whole idea of "nation" is treated as a given throughout the article, and not problematized and put into its historical context. See German or Spanish wp for how this could be done. Take the first sentence: "A nation is a cultural and social community. In as much as most members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered an imagined community." This is presented as the gospel. From Spanish wp :"El concepto de nación cultural es uno de los que mayores problemas ha planteado y plantea a las ciencias sociales, pues no hay unanimidad a la hora de definirlo." (The concept of cultural nation is one of the concepts which has caused and continues to cause major problems in the social sciences, since there is no unanimity how to define it.) From German wp: "Der Nationsbegriff, mit dem in der vorbürgerlichen Zeit an den ersten Universitäten die Studenten aus bestimmten europäischen Regionen als Nation (nationes) bezeichnet wurden, ist von der staatsbezogenen Nationsentwicklung zu unterscheiden, bei dem die (eigentlich verschiedenen) Begriffe Staat und Nation zu Beginn des Bürgertums und der Moderne miteinander verbunden oder gleichgesetzt werden." (Roughly, state and nation are linked and equated only in Modern Times with the rise of the middle class).

That's for the POV tag

As for the worldwide-view tag, it seems to me that the US as a whole has a rather uncritical approach to nation and nationalism, which is different in Europe. The uncritical approach and the critical approach should both be reflected. Still, the whole thing is centered on the West then. "Nation" in one of its major interpretations today is basically a child of 19th century romanticism in Europe. It is not clear how it could be applied to India or most of the countries of Africa. A true worldwide view would explain the different conceptualizations and adaptations of "Nation" in the major geographical areas of the world. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

cultural nation and religion

while I agree that the recent deletion by Blue Haired Lawyer was probably correct in the great lines, I think the fact that Malaysia requires her citizens to be Muslims could still be significant. As for the Arab thing, it already sounded a bit bogus to me when I translated it ...;-) Jasy jatere (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The bit where it said:

"The concept of cultural nation changes if the defining characteristic is religion. The interpretation of cultural nation along religious line did not have much importance during the formation of the European states."

was also completely bogus. Religion is also interwoven in European nations. Just look at the conflict in Northern Ireland. Since that just left the bit about Malaysia, I decided to delete the whole thing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

without wanting to engage in original research, it could be the case that the formation of European nations in the 19th century was indeed untainted by religion. But religion is of course a cultural phenomenon, so it makes little sense to treat it as separate from culture Jasy jatere (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Common language

"A language is the primary ingredient in the making of a nation. Without a common language a nation cannot evolve. A common Culture, a common History is dependent on Language. Also to deal with everyday affairs within a group of people living in a specified boundary need a common mean of communication to trade and socialize." (my bold) I don't really understand the apparent zeal in this section. Without citations it comes across as rather weak. The concept of an ingredient suggests a common language somehow preceding the creation of a nation. I'm not sure that this would have to be true. I also don't think that the idea of "evolution" of a nation is clear at all.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the problematic wording. Feel free to cut out and rearrange other stuff, this article is definitely in need of more editors to weed out unecyclopaedic stuff. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sub standard

This article is clearly sub standard. I am putting a POV mark on it, because it does not recognise the third and most important definition of a nation and the nation versus the modern nation, according to Anthony D Smith. In other words, it falsely divides theory about nations into a primordialist versus constructivist dichotomy, where in fact there are three different interpretations of what a nation is. According to Anthony D. Smith, there is a more timeless but limited definition of what a nation is, and then a wider definition of what a modern nation is. Structure and wording of the text also suggest an author with insufficient skills to write this kind of text. I note and agree with the quality deficieny tag. [[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)]

Citation tag

It is more helpful to tag each questioned statement with a "citation needed", thus: {{cn}}

For more information see Template:Citation needed. The protocol is when a statement is tagged, accompany it with an entry on this talk page, raising it so that other editors can contribute their improvements.

Original research tag

There is a corresponding inline tag for 'original research': {{or}}. Again, when a statement is tagged, accompany it with an entry on this talk page, raising it so that other editors can contribute their improvements. See Template:or for more information.

This can help editors to sort out the issues one statement at a time. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Smart linking

• BTW, you might note I tend towards targeted linking. This isn’t Simple English Wikipedia. I write for the typical reader (perhaps a standard deviation on both sides of the peak of the bell curve). Someone interested in nations and who visits this article would have a decent chance of following up on Sovereign state, Country, and Cherokee Nation to learn about the nuances and distinctions they present for the concept of “nation.” I see no point in creating seas of blue by linking commonly recognized terms like “race” and “history” since they are so much less likely to be clicked. If someone simply must add more links (*sigh*), so be it. Greg L (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

From the beginning...

On the basis that we're writing this article from the beginning, we should at least being by deciding what the article is going to be about. Saying that a term is ambiguous and proceeding to list different meanings is how we write disambiguation pages not articles. IMHO it's not unreasonable to concentrate on the nation of nationalism rather than government or international-relations, given that Wikipedia already has articles on sovereign states and countries. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• The article is about “nation”. As best as I can discern from my dictionaries and on-line resources, it has three meanings. The first meaning is that it could refer to “country” or “sovereign state”. But we already have two articles on that definition and those two already have tons of overlap; so—I agree 100% with you—I see no point adding to the redundancy by expanding this article insofar as that meaning goes. That leaves the broader definition as well as the definition referring to American Indian nations. I see no point at this time in creating a separate article for American Indian Nations or Nation (American Indians); I would leave that up to those Wikipedians who are specializing in American Indian articles and they haven’t seen fit to yet do so. If this article grows to such an extent that it has plenty of material covering the two latter definitions, then we can do a move and create a new article. That’s the way this sort of thing often goes anyway and such a natural course seems indicated here at this juncture. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. Also, Wikipedia already has an article on Nationalism. It seems clear to me that for any article titled merely “Nation”, it would be a colossal error and be a major disservice to our readership to suggest that the word means just one thing when that is clearly not the case. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Government" and definition

User:Snowed: Regarding this edit, I think “government” is a necessary element to be in compliance with the cited sources. Note the citation, which states as follows: World Book Dictionary defines nation as “the people occupying the same country, united under the same government, and usually speaking the same language”. Another definition is that nation is a “sovereign state.” Note how the definition that is not one of a sovereign state still requires that there be a common government; it’s just that it may not be a government that rises to the level of an internationally recognized sovereign state. Greg L (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of two thirds of the content

With this edit, two thirds of the content of this page were removed. I doubt that this is a good way to improve the article.

"Just throw it away and build a new one from scratch with more contributions from experienced Wikipedians and less from I.P.s out to change the world" as advanced by GregL is not the right way to go about. If IPs are your problem, request semiprotection. If you want more experienced wikipedians, ask at the relevant Wikiprojects.

The history of the concept of nation is pretty well documented, as can be seen from a look at the [[1]], [[2]] or [[3]] wikipedias, which pretty much agree on the evolution of this concept. I see no reason why such a historical section should be lacking from the English wikipedia. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not reliable sources for original thought.

• (looking at your provided three links, above)… First, we don’t cite or refer to Wikipedia—even other-language Wikipedias—to prove anything.

  My above posts provide an exceedingly clear explanation for why the wholesale revision of this article was necessary. The article was nothing but a giant, non-cited essay. It comprised so much Original Research, it was impossible—understandably and rightly so—to even begin citing it. The snowball of OR really got its start with this series of three edits in a half hour by a single editor. That soapboxing expanded the article from 13,326 bytes to 20,348 bytes but didn’t contain a single citation. That really opened the flood gates for others anxious to get in on the soapbox act.

  All this article did was provide a redundant soap box for the publishing of original thought. Anyone contemplating putting that stuff back will need to authoritatively cite every single assertion and ensure the references are both reliable sources and are widely shared views of experts in the field so the assertions here don’t amount to original thought via editors cherry picking philosophies and niche theories in violation of Wikipedia’s requirement that articles have a neutral point of view. I’m referring to lengthy swaths of incessantly uncited assertions like German nationalism stood out and rejected American and French liberalism, leading to a different conceptualization of nation, the cultural nation. (BTW, plugging that whopper into Microsoft Word shows it has a Flesch Reading Ease of 00.4, which is the lowest score (most abstruse) for text on Wikipedia that I’ve ever stumbled across. It is a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium for unambiguously communicating ideas to a general-interest readership.)

  Given that we already have articles on Sovereign state, Country, and Nationalism, I see no point for even attempting what you suggest given the extreme redundancy that would result.

  Note that I came here to add a new thread below regarding more WP:OR. So I might as well as do it now…

  Greg L (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No Original Research

“Chocolate Nation”?

Regarding this edit (which added “Flockk Nation” and which another editor rightly reverted since the article was deleted from Wikipedia), it might be tempting to think we are improving Wikipedia and Changing The World®™© by adding every kind of collective we stumble across that calls itself a “nation.” But in addition to all the requirements Wikipedia has for articles that I mentioned in the above thread, Wikipedia also has requirements of notability. The only mention of “Flockk Nation” in this Google search returns just two hits, both of which refer to Wikipedia, clearly amounting to yet another violation of WP:OR.

Indeed, it might be tempting for our 9th-grade I.P.s to learn about the Aryan Nations and rush here to breathlessly add it to this article as an example of another type of nation. But just because some security guards for a racist club in North Idaho are snappy dressers and call themselves a “nation,” is no reason to make this article non-compliant with dictionary definitions of “nation,” which also rules out Chocolate Nation.

Currently, the one-paragraph lede of this article is 100% compliant with—and does not stray from—the textbook definitions of the word “nation”; let’s keep it that way, shall we? Greg L (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Palestine as a people with a government that is not a sovereign state

I note this: Wikipedia already has articles on sovereign state and on country. We do not have an article on Indian nations but this article now mentions a linked example of Cherokee Nation and that serves the purpose of illustrating the example. What is sorely missing is a linkable example of a nation that is neither a sovereign state nor Indian nation. So…

I would suggest that the first thing this article could expand upon is an example of a “nation” that is neither a sovereign state nor an American Indian Nation. I’m thinking the peoples of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip consider themselves a nation. But with Israeli’s on one side and Palestinians on the other in both cases, passions run high and using either as an example in this article is bound to be editwarred upon unless there are widely recognized and authoritative primary sources quoted in reliable secondary sources buttressing that point of view. And I don’t know of a clear example to use. Here’s my thoughts and reasoning on approaching this issue:

According to our own West Bank article: The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the United States, the EU, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross refer to the West Bank as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. The article also states as follows: Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel. (BTW, I just now changed that last clause to which is currently Israel as I found the former to have an minimizing, conversational tone and the latter to be more encyclopedic and succinct.) Though this latter quote mentions “independent state”, I think it clearly means “sovereign state”. Nevertheless, the West Bank has a government and territory. Beyond that, they also share a common language, race, descent, and history. I note that the Palestinian Return Centre, HERE mentions Israel's guiding principle has been to engender discord between Palestinians by putting the interests of each group into conflict, said Dr Ghanem. "A feuding Palestinian nation was never likely to be in a position to run its own affairs." I interpret that statement to mean that the *expert* assumes the West Bank to be a nation (a nation of Palestinian peoples) but is one that is hard pressed to be a successful sovereign state.

I am certainly not an expert on Middle East issues. Moreover, truth-in-adversiing requires that I mention that my edits on Israeli and terrorism-related articles tend to often take a pro-Western and arguably pro-Israeli bent. Regardless, I really tend to fall on the side of “just the facts, ma’am” and, though this post may offend pro-Israeli editors, common sense tells me that the Palestinians likely often refer to themselves as a “Palestinian nation.” So…

Were it me, I would try A) to find a less controversial example than either the West Bank or Gaza Strip to use for a “nation” that is neither a UN-recognized sovereign state nor Indian nation, or B) find a respected reliable source that states that the residents or de facto governments of either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip (or both) consider their territories to be a nation.

And finally, unless the candidate for this type of non-sovereign state nation is unassailably true and well cited, I suggest we reach a clear consensus here this talk page before putting it into the article. My only objective here is to improve the article. Since I am at a loss to discern a suitable example of a nation that is not a sovereign state nor Indian nation, I suspect finding a linkable and citable example would best serve our visiting readership since many of them will no-doubt wonder the very same thing. Greg L (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I’m thinking we might be able to spring-board off of Palestinian nationalism. But leaping from the reality that a nationalistic movement exists amongst Palestinians to the notion that Palestinians of the West Bank flat consider themselves to be—or are—a Palestinian nation requires some citation muscle. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. There. After a resounding chorus of “meh” from the community over the last 23 hours, I added a section titled “Nations that are not sovereign states” HERE, to this version of the article. I did it as a new, stand-alone section so if the notion proves too controversal that the peoples comprising the State of Palestine consider themselves to be “Palestinian nation”, then editwarring and Turkish butt-stabbings and all sorts of mayhem can be limited to just the new section. If someone can think of a better example to use, by all means. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any difficulty with the use of the Palestinian example, as it seems sufficiently well-sourced, and contains the obvious caveats. However, it seems a weakness to only have a single such example. Opponents of this particular "nationalism" are accordingly going to take exception to the entire section on that basis. I'm not greatly invested in which examples are used: I'll throw in Time's "Top 10 Aspiring Nations" article as a starting point. Smartiger (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• And that feeling is more than understandable; I share them as well, User:Smartiger

  I am at a total loss for an incontestable example other than the Palestinian Nation. Part of what makes State of Palestine such a good example of a “nation” (the second, broader definition) is that some sovereign states already recognize them as a state. That Wikipedia has an article titled “Palestinian nationalism” cements its appropriateness. But when you mix in the fact that their de facto government has variably been the PLO and Hamas—both of which have been labeled as terrorist organizations, things get controversial in a nanosecond. Setting “controversial” aside, none of that changes the simple fact that the second definition of “nation” (a people who share a common government) clearly applies here.

  If you can think of another example of a people who share a common language, and/or race, and/or descent, and/or history; who are united under a common government; and which isn’t yet a bona fide sovereign state nor member of the U.N., please add it.

  A second example will help. Right now, the very attributes that makes the Palestinian nation so appropriate also make it controversial. Passions run deep in that part of the world. The legitimate security concerns of Israel and the strategic concerns from variety of interests in the area make this a controversial topic. I suspect that if you were to dig up another example of a second-definition nation (united under a government but not yet a sovereign state) as good as the Palestinians, there will be a neighboring country whose citizens A) feel threatened by such statehood, and which B) brings in a share of I.P.s (from southern NeverHeardOfItstan) who come here to delete any mention of it (because said “nation” is just a Mickey Mouse Club and they eat lotus leaves all day).

  I’ve asked that this article be semi-protected. The issue is being considered. Having this discussion thread active here at the bottom of the page will hopefully precipitate broader discussion that will serve up some additional examples. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: Flemish nation?

• I'm not sure we should restrict ourselves to examples of a people "who are united under a common government". That's not so much a necessary component of the definition of a "nation" as it is one of the different sense of the word "nation". It's often used of some sovereign states that would arguable fail other tests of "nationhood", for example. If you particularly want those, though, the Basque Country, Scotland, and the Communities/Regions of Belgium would qualify. But I'd argue that Kurdistan would (also) be a useful example. Smartiger (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• As wikipedians, we restrict ourselves to what the sources say. Note the following:

“ World Book Dictionary defines nation as “the people occupying the same country, united under the same government, and usually speaking the same language”. Another definition is that nation is a “sovereign state.” It also says nation can refer to “a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history.” World Book Dictionary also gives this definition: “a tribe of North American Indians.” ”

It gives all three definitions: sovereign state, the broader definition, and the American Indian one. Note also this one from Websters:

“ …defines nation as “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government” and also as “a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)”. ”

It skips over the sovereign state one and focuses only on the broader one whereas World Book includes all three.

Yes, I know what you are driving at with regard to regions of Belgium. Belgium and their upper region is an excellent point that makes it distinct from normal provinces and similar political subdivisions of sovereign states. Indeed, there is no such thing as Idaho nationalism or State of Ontariostine. But Wikipedia does have articles (linked to in this article) on Palestinian nationalism and State of Palestine. Being able to link to those provides a solid foundation buttressing the appropriateness of using it here as an example of a non-sovereign-state nation.

Clearly, the broadest definition of nation in this artice is what the dictionaries are referring to when they speak in the broadest terms of a people, united with a common culture and/or history, and under a common government; as distinct from a sovereign state. In short, the broadest definition is clearly intended to sweep up all the other non-American Indian-type nations that are also not sovereign states.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m all ears for an alternative to either replace or supplement Palestinian nation. I really, really like your mentioning of Belgium; read Flemish Community. The lede of that article includes this:

1. Culturally and sociologically, it refers to Flemish organizations, media, social and cultural life; alternative expressions for this concept might be the "Flemish people" or the "Flemish nation" (in a similar sense as the Scottish, Welsh, or Québécois people or nations, referring to a national identity). The term "community" should then not be capitalized.

Note also where Flemish nationalism redirects to; Flemish Movement. Note also how that latter link would be immediately met with its own controversies. I seriously doubt there would ever be another example of a non-sovereign national identity (the #2 definition) that is without its own set of controversies. I suspect we can replace Palestinian with Flemish and that would merely change the types of I.P.s who delete any mention of it (while declaring that the Flemish people smell like goats, could never govern themselves because the left foot of government doesn’t know what the right foot is doing, and other horse crap to that effect). Nevertheless…

If you think spring-boarding off of Flemish nationalism is a wise move here, I’m all for giving a go—with your permission—at expanding this article with it. I’m interested in your thoughts before doing so. I’m equally interested in see if doing so would simply double the I.P.-grief, but I also think it would objectively strengthen the point and better educate our readership. An admin whom I had contacted to see if this article could be receive semi-protection was at a loss—as was I—to think of an alternative or supplement to Palestinian nation; that cluelessness speaks to the need for more examples. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a category from which you might pick some other suggestions: Category:Independence movements. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of expanding it using Flanders as an example. I think it would be in danger of being slightly misleading to pick only examples with common governments, however, so if you're excluding Kurdistan (or the Scotland of a few years ago, prior to devolution), I think that's to misconstrue the range of senses the word carries. Concise Oxford: "1. a community of people of mainly common descent, history, language, etc, forming a state or inhabiting a territory." Or more to the point, you'll find sources describing those particular instances in terms of "nation", for example The EconomistL "A nation divided: Elusive Kurdistan". Using direct sources for each instance will avoid the possible difficulties of arriving at a "Wikipedia definition", and then trying to apply it to each case (WP:SYNTH). Smartiger (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• That’s the purpose of being able to link internally to Wikipedia articles that already speak to a given people being a nation. We can use Palestinian nationalism, Flemish nationalism, and Kurdish nationalism, all of which resolve to their respective articles. Thus, no Synth. I prefer Flemish nationalism because of an additional virtue: there is a related article, Flemish Community mentions that another name is “Flemish nation”. To avoid Synth, I would prefer to stick to examples where the notion of “nationalism” is linked to the term “nation” (as in “[Demonym] nation”) in the articles to which we link. If you know of other Wikipedia articles that mention “[Demonym] nation”, please advise. Greg L (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the risk of "SYNTH" is if we decide to include or exclude particular purported, aspirant, possible or "controversial" nations on a basis of our choosing, as opposed to using what appropriate sources call a nation. Certainly if there is already an article on a particular "nationalism" it's an obvious candidate for already having such sources already to hand, but there's no absolute requirement to do so. All the examples mentioned so far have such articles, though, so this is a fairly theoretical caveat. I think three of four such examples would be perfectly sufficient, especially where they have a range of different legal statuses, to illustrate some of the range of sense of meaning in the term. Flanders and Scotland seem in some senses similar cases, so I'm no sure we'd need both of those, but one of those, Kurdistan and Palestine all seem significantly different in various respects. Smartiger (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I know all that stuff, like Synth. I’m not *new*. But I’m also not shy and am prone to WP:BOLD when I come across an article that was a colossal pile of essay of pure O.R. I stripped all that crap out and went back to the dictionary definitions. I need less grief—not more—in the task of doing our readership a favor by providing examples of the second definition without having a metric butt-load of linked principles like WP:Synth thrown my way; it doesn’t impress. Rolling up one’s sleeves and getting to work to identify the most suitable examples is all we need here.

I chose Palestinian nation because it is so indisputably a nation in the broader scope that Wikipedia has articles on their nationalism and Arab and Persian leaders of neighboring countries refer to the Palestinian nation. As I said above, no matter what examples we chose, there will be I.P.s coming here deleting any mention of them, and leaving only edit summaries with rants about how the example sucks because of (yadda yadda) reason. And I can’t get the article semi-protected—at least yet. If Wikipedia has an article on a given separatist movement and calls them a “[Demonym ] nation” in the lede, then it is not Synth to link to them; common sense suffices. This God-forsaken article is bound to be like Wikipedia’s Race and intelligence article: a basket case of controversy no matter what we do. Greg L (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The below thread pissed me off. I don’t like dealing with you any further. Goodbye. You’ve got this article to yourself. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Fixing" straight quotes.

Moved from an editor’s talk page since this pertains squarely to this particular article

Straight quotes are stylistically preferred. From WP:PUNCT: "Typewriter or straight style: "text", 'text'. Recommended at Wikipedia. Typographic or curly style: “text”, ‘text’. Not recommended at Wikipedia." Smartiger (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who made a living converting a certain, vertical niche of the graphic arts industry to computers (Macs) back in the 80s and 90s, I find straight quotes to be unprofessional and ugly beyond all comprehension. Microsoft Word and many other programs automatically generate them but Wikipedia’s editing engine is too dumb to do that. Moreover, BarbarianOS (Windows) makes it exceedingly difficult to type typographer’s quotes; it’s trivially easy on a Mac right through the keyboard (and I use a Mac).

  Don’t worry about the typographer’s quotes. If you need to actually add a quote, please do so in any fashion that is most convenient. If that is straight quotes, then, by all means; it won’t be long before I see them and upgrade them. But, please don’t go out of your way and actually spend more time “fixing” all the other quotes by converting them to typewriter quotes. This collaborative writing relationship will keep the article looking consistent and professional, won’t encumber you or any other contributor with the inconvenience of having to squeeze curly quotes out of Windblowz, and properly puts the onus of going the extra mile on those who give a crap about such details.

  I find this to be collaborative writing at its best and is quite fitting with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which holds that “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Greg L (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but that's the style. If you submitted work to a publication and ignored their "house style guidelines", it would be far from "professional". Same situation here: only without the money element. Please don't revert this again. Smartiger (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I did the heavy lifting and spent dozens of hours on this article. But you just had to push over something that wasn’t all that important to you but was important to me. I did revert it. Wikipedia is is supposed to be a fun hobby. If you want to make a scene and make contributing to Wikipedia not fun for other editors who roll up their sleeves and contribute to Wikipedia, and do so over something like the style of punctuation they used, just go ahead and revert me again because you have Truth and Your Way©™® on your side. Now…

      I moved this discussion thread from my talk page to here. You go figure out how to improve this article without me. Please don’t track my edits and contributions and follow me wherever I go as I don’t like working with you because of your bossy, preaching style; you act like you’re a wanna-be Admin and own this place with your “Please don’t revert it again”-conclusion. I can see you enjoy hoping atop your soapbox on Wikipedia and get a buzzy telling other (experienced) editors what do do with article’s they’re slaving over; you know, quoting WP:Synth, as if you’ve uniquely Got It All Figured Out. You seem to gravitate towards conflict, not away. And that’s a big turn off. With 6,822,444 articles, it should be a rare occurrence we again cross paths merely by chance. This article is all yours, tiger; do whatever you please. Happy editing and goodbye. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

      • What on earth is this now doing on this article's talk page, having moved from where it was much better-placed on your own talk page? There's nothing here specific to nation, but it does concern your editing in general, if you're planning on changing MOS-compliant style to non-MOS-compliant style elsewhere. Especially as you're abandoning the article, and have chosen to construct your reply in such inappropriately personalised terms? Smartiger (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Different meanings and proposed move

I am apparently meant to take Zebedee's word for it that the most common meaning of nation is that of referring to a sovereign state, for he offers no source for his assertion. This is certainly not the impression I get from the dictionaries I've canvassed. Dictionary.com provides the following definitions for "nation":

"1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.

3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.

4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages."

"1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc, organized into a single state: the Australian nation

2. a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc: the French-Canadian nation

3. a. a federation of tribes, esp American Indians

b. the territory occupied by such a federation"

The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definitions under the heading "A people or group of peoples; a political state"

"a. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In early use also in pl.: a country.)

b. of (also by) nation : by nationality. of —— nation: of the nationality specified. Obs.

c. A group of people having a single ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation, but without a separate or politically independent territory.

d. With the: the whole population of a country, freq. in contrast to a smaller or narrower body within it."

While the term clearly is strongly associated with the sovereign state, there are many other elements of the definitions which have to be ignored if the nation as sovereign state simpliciter is adopted. If nothing else the older definition ("A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government.") is vindicated in how it sought to associated the elements of people and state rather than separating them out.

IMHO the best way to deal with the different sovereign-state meaning would be to provide a headnote directing readers toward the sovereign-state article (which already deals that subject) and deal with the core meaning here. Failing that we should move this article to something like "Nation (sociology)", and put Nation (disambiguation) at "Nation". This is the way terms should be disambiguated. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is unbelievably sub-standard and is beyond salvaging

As an experienced editor, I know crap articles when I see them. At this stage, it is beyond hope, with POV-pushing, Original Research, and zilch for citations. Just throw it away and build a new one from scratch with more contributions from experienced Wikipedians and less from I.P.s out to change the world by soap-boxing here. Seriously; just toss this one and start fresh. Greg L (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you were right to remove that one paragraph which was unsourced and dubious in various aspects. Much of the rest can be improved and/or rewritten but I think your heading is a little extreme. I look forward to seeing you work on it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I count at least 46 entirely-unsourced paragraphs.

I was aghast at how a personal essay like that, with such lengthy swaths of assertions entirely unsupported by a single citation, had been allowed to persist here as if it was remotely encyclopedic. Without citations, one must conclude that grand assertions like the following two examples are Original Research:

1. The nation as defined by these theorists has an inalienable right to give itself its own political organization, i.e. constitute a state. But in distinction to the liberal model of the United States or France, this type of nation is thought to be beyond the sum of individuals with the will to form a nation.
2. German nationalism stood out and rejected American and French liberalism, leading to a different conceptualization of nation, the cultural nation.

Yeaaaaah… As if those French should eventually start thinking of their country as one with a distinctive and defining culture. I strongly suspect the article was the product of a high school or college student who wrote an essay for an assignment and thought it exceedingly worthy of sharing with the rest of the English-speaking planet. It was beyond repair.

As to my working on it: Very well, I will. My first stop will be to redo the very first paragraph; a good lede invariably results in a good article developed below it.

There is no single definition of what a nation is. Nevertheless, that simple reality presented no impediment whatsoever to the prior version of the article as it simply adopted a schizophrenic work-around: The lede of this article spoke of just one definition (the broadest sense of a people with a common territory and government) as if that is the only definition; and then the body text dwelled upon the term in its more specific meaning as sovereign state and soap-boxed on nationalistic aspects of that in often philosophical ("bourgeois revolution") and broad-brushed terms—and all with the nearest citation so far away, a chameleon’s tongue wouldn’t reach it. Greg L (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And… done. This lede is my start on the subject, anyway. I’ll sleep on it before I consider expanding this article any further. Greg L (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this entry is clearly sub-standard. Instead of referring to up-to-date theory on nations and nationalism it seems to suggest that the idea that a nation was entitles to live in a souverain nation-state was not part of 19th century nationalist thinking or, worse, that the great thinker Stalin was the first to suggest that the idea of a nation was linked to a territory. This is clearly nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjeldsoe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening statement

The opening sentence used to say:

• "A nation can refer to a sovereign state,[1] as for instance in the member states of the United Nations,[2] or to a community of people who share a common language, descent, history, and, although not necessarily, a common government."

User:Blue-Haired Lawyer ignored and removed the hidden comment which said "<!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: PLEASE SEE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF “NATION” (there are only three) that are cited in this article BEFORE EDITING IN A MANNER that might contravene the widely accepted dictionary definitions of “nation.” --> " and swapped it round to say:

• "A nation can refer to a community of people who share a common language, descent, history, and, although not necessarily, a common government,[1] or to a sovereign state,[1] as for instance in the member states of the United Nations".

I reverted, as I believe the existing state of the article plus that comment represent current consensus, but Blue-Haired Lawyer has re-reverted. I've put it back to the original version once more, but will not revert further until a discussion here concludes. Blue-Haired Lawyer has been bold, I've reverted, and now it's time to discuss. Opinions please. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't where you get this idea of current consensus. I removed the comment because it was and is a completely inappropriate way of enforcing a given opinion on other editors. Wikipedia editors are not bound by what dictionaries might say even if they provide good guides. As far as the lead and content of the article is concerned I've just addressed those issues in the thread above and there's not much point in me repeating myself here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the general assumption is that the way things are is the current consensus, and establishing styles by way of "hidden" comments is a common way of documenting past consensus - it is done like that in lots of places. And no, Wikipedia is not bound by dictionaries, but they do provide good guidance for the relative priorities of definitions, and the opening sentence in an article is very much a definition of the subject of an article. But my point in all of this is that a change of the kind you propose (which overturns what looks like a stable long-term version) needs discussion first. If there is a consensus in agreement with you, that's fine - I'll support your change -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the genesis of both the current lead and the hidden comment are, form any reading of this talk page, are the efforts of one editor and date from no more than five months ago. Whilst much of the old article was, in fairness, rubbish, the previous lead was sourced and sourced with a more authoritative source, the New Oxford American Dictionary.

Looking back over the talk page it's obvious that many editors expressed doubts concerning Greg L's edits but they don't seem to have persisted. One editor can not be the source of consensus. While hidden comments can result from consensus, they can also be the result of wp:ownership. As can comments such as this one:

"Well, I did the heavy lifting and spent dozens of hours on this article. But you just had to push over something that wasn’t all that important to you but was important to me. I did revert it."

— Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. But yes, I've had a look over the history of what you're saying, and I'm happy to withdraw my objection to your change and your removal of that "hidden" comment. Thanks for taking the time to explain it all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No more essays here

We can't have Wikipedia being a venue for wikipedians writing essays where they write “Maidment and Mackerras argue”. Heading down this path lead to this article becoming what must have been a record-breaking violation of ESSAY. Everything that is put into this article must be incontestable fact widely supported by most-reliable RSs on the subject. Greg L (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merely citing an opinion and attributing it does not violate WP:NOTESSAY (Btw this is what the policy is actually called). Citing and contrasting conflicting differing opinions is a normal part of encyclopedia editing. I only had one because I was just giving the base bones of where the article could go, but since you disliked one sentence so much I've removed it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How in the world did you decide on what points and who to cite in #Conception of nationhood?? Are you some sort of published RS and an authority on the subject of “Nation” that establishes that Wikipedia now has a true, balanced, factual balance as a result of what you just cherry picked with regard to what “Benedict Anderson argues” and what “Eric Hobsbawm argues” and what “Ernest Gellner similarly argues” and what “William Ralph Inge famously said”? This is what WP:NOTESSAY is trying to address: having college students, all giddy with how wise and knowledgeable they have become in only three short months come here to pick and choose what they think the world ought to know about a subject. Please thoughtfully consider how you are going to answer my question. What I see so far looks like a whole bunch of “essay by Blue-Haired Lawyer”. Unless you can point to the Mother Of All RSs that is a widely recognized and accepted treatise on the subject of nation and unless the individuals you seemed to have pulled out of thin air here are a darn good distillation of what is in that RS, it's not gonna fly; not by a long shot. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. After a decent wait for a response of any sort out of you, and after watching a bunch of registered editors and I.P.s try to fix what you did with proper citations, it became apparent that this article had become an unsupportable essay wherein you had waxed philosophical with what “Ernest Gellner similarly argues” and what “William Ralph Inge famously said”. I suggest you limit yourself to what widely respected RSs such as print dictionaries, print encyclopedias, and the United Nations have to say on the subject. Greg L (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I support Greg L's stance here. He took a great deal of time and trouble to rewrite the article five months ago and his changes proved to be stable and well-respected. Let's first discuss wholesale changes on this talk page. GFHandel ♬  20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of nation as a sovereign state

Changes to the lead having been reverted yet again, we are again faced with a lead which defines the nation as referring to a sovereign state. All the credible sources I can find, at best, define the nation as the inhabitants of a sovereign state with the use of the word nation to mean state being a metonymy. I have no access to the source cited (World Book Dictionary) for nation state meaning sovereign state but the quoted text "the people occupying the same country, united under the same government, and usually speaking the same language" appears to be more in line with nation as referring to a group of people. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• It’s not complex. The lede is authoritatively cited to two different, widely respected dictionary and references all their various definitions. The current lede is written so it isn’t contrary to either dictionary nor to any of their definitions. That citation reads as follows:

“ World Book Dictionary defines nation as “the people occupying the same country, united under the same government, and usually speaking the same language”. Another definition is that nation is a “sovereign state.” It also says nation can refer to “a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history.” World Book Dictionary also gives this definition: “a tribe of North American Indians.” Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary defines nation as “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government” and also as “a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)”. ”

This approach (sticking to actual, incontestable facts) is a gigantic improvement over previous incarnations of this article, which was the product of many a wikipedian, intent on waxing philosophical even though they aren’t themselves an RS. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I can read thanks! Why not quote the entire dictionary entry (and some details over which edition etc...) than your own selective reading of it. Even by your own source describing a nation as a sovereign state is "another definition", but yet this is inverted in the article which puts the sovereign-state meaning first. You continually revert my sourced additions whilst asserting that your own are "incontestable facts". The New Oxford American Dictionary and the Collins English Dictionary are just as authoritative as the ones you cite. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell you accuse me of picking and choosing sources, but you appear to do a fair amount it yourself. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• It can't be helped if you disapprove of the dictionaries I elected to quote from; it would be tedious reading and a disservice to our readership to quote from every dictionary in existence since they are in general alignment with each other. Now…

  There is no comparison between choosing which dictionaries to cite to and a pure essay by Blue-Haired Lawyer that goes “Benedict Anderson argues” and what “Eric Hobsbawm argues” and what “Ernest Gellner similarly argues” and what “William Ralph Inge famously said”. You full-well know that this is only permissible if all four statesmen and authors were quoted from a highly respected and widely accepted RS and if all four are a fair and balanced distillation of the totality of that RS without undo weight placed on a particular view. As it stands, the only apparent connection these four “authorities” on the subject have is that they are ones that Blue-Haired Lawyer cherry picked in order to wax philosophical on this subject. You aren’t an RS.

  Important details of your work, like your “famously” (as in “William Ralph Inge famously said”) just don’t withstand scrutiny. If that particular quote is that extra-noteworthy and famous (more so than other quotes attributed to him), why is it not in our current version of our article on Inge? And why is that quote not among those attributed to Inge by FamousQuotesAndAuthors.com nor Ranker? It seems that this particular quote is no more famous than many others attributed to him and it is certainly not especially famous in comparison to those made by others on the subject of “nation.” There is no connection to those four authors/statesmen/priests other than they were ones Blue-Haired Lawyer chose. Thus, that whole paragraph of yours was just a bunch of soap-boxing by Blue-Haired Lawyer, all the way down to which quote ought to be separated out for *extra-special* emphasis for being “famously said.”

  You were editorializing and thought yourself to be sufficiently expert in the subject that the rest of the world should be exposed to this thought that caught your fancy:

  [A] nation is a society that nourishes a common delusion about its ancestry and shares a common hatred for its neighbours.

You liked that idea that nationality is a “common delusion” based on “hatred for its neighbours” did you? Blue-Haired Lawyer thought the rest of the English-speaking should be exposed to this quote which was “famously said”? Did you overlook Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along?”

I suggest you stop feigning great insult here to my calling you out on your efforts to use Wikipedia as a venue for original thought via “personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic” through cherry-picked quotes from thousands on this subject. This sort of mentality lead to this version of the article, which was a pile of half-cooked tripe and which lead to comments above like #this whole article reads like a personal essay and #Sub standard.

As for the dictionary definitions being relied upon here, let me know where you find a new and novel definition of “nation” in a reliable and authoritative dictionary that hasn’t yet been captured with the current text. One thing is for sure: I wasn’t trying to espouse any particular slant of my own when I elected to cite Websters and World Book; the combination of those two resulted in the most inclusive number of definitions. Greg L (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I really like the Inge quote you dredged up that goes “[a] nation is a society that nourishes a common delusion about its ancestry and shares a common hatred for its neighbours." It’s worth remembering. You should create your own blog somewhere on the subject of “nation.” If the totality of your work is later cited by secondary RS somewhere, Wikipedia can then draw from your work. Greg L (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nations without a sovereign state

Cards on the table: every since Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikibias.com in a recent AfD, I've been an occasional visitor to the site, and that's what led me here. Now for the serious problems with the "Nations without a sovereign state" section, which are my own observations and not anyone else's. Other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, does anyone else use the English word nation in the Palestinian context? Ahmadinejad, in all fairness, cannot be considered a reliable source as to which people do or don't constitute a nation in the encyclopedic sense. Furthermore, there are plenty of notable individuals who've argued that Jordan is the Palestinian state; so if Ahmadinajad's opinion carries any weight, so should theirs. Then there is the problem of WP:UNDUE. Palestinian nationalism is being given all of the weight of the section when equally if not more compelling arguments could be formulated for other peoples without states, in particular Kurds, Tibetans, Basques, Chechens, and so on. Let's make this an encyclopedia article and not a political manifesto.—Biosketch (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough I recently deleted the references to Palestine only to be reverted by Messrs. Greg L and GFHandel. Without getting into the whys and wherefores there are probably more straightforward and less controversial examples. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is seriously overweighted toward one POV. It clearly calls out and pushes a political view for the Palestinians with no mention of other groups. If one is called out that way, it should be neutral. Also, no mention of Basque, Kurd, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.4.106 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians, like Kurds, are often referred to as "a nation without a state" [4], and this status has played a significant role in the shaping of their identity [5]. It is true that their case helps illustrates the subtle difference in meaning between "nation", "state", and "nation-state", but as they are on the path to statehood, or arguably already there given the wide recognition the State of Palestine enjoys, they may not be the best example for this section. If that stateless nation status is described in more evolutionary historical terms, as is done here, it might be better, but other examples should definitelybe included too. Kurds and Kurdistan deserve a mention as they are repeatedly discussed in RS in this context, and the case of Armenians might also better illustrate what "nation" means - i.e. while there is a state of Armenia, much of the Armenian people (or nation) resides outside the state. Sources on these distinctions can be easily found in google book searches. If no one wants to pursue adding these themselves, I'll try to dig up some time in the coming days. Tiamut^talk 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• It’s not just Ahmadinejad who speaks of a Palestinian Nation,” the issue comes up in the United Nations all the time about Whether the should U.N. recognize a Palestinian nation; which is to say, recognize it not as a people that identify themselves as a nation but to recognize them as a sovereign state. The Palestinians refer to themselves all the time as a “Palestinian Nation.” Ergo, it is the best example I know of out there for a people who consider themselves a nation that is not already a sovereign state. If someone else knows of a better example, fine; use that.

  But we won’t have deletion of the current example (because it controversial and gets some anti-Jewish panties in a bunch) without a better replacement. If someone thinks they’ve got a more drop-dead obvious example than “Palestinian Nation”, perform a Google search (like this one) and see if it comes up with a quarter million hits. If it has even more hits than that, bring it up here for discussion.

  As for including a “Kurdish Nation” in the article, this is about making a good-reading article on the subject of ‘nation,’ not about *being inclusive* to make other people yearning to have their own widely recognized sovereign nation feel all good about themselves; we’re not going to be heading down that path and turn this article into a bloody battleground for people with a political axe to grind intent on POV-pushing here. Far fewer English-speaking people know about a Kurdish Nation and far fewer nations recognize the Kurds as a sovereign state, so going there would undoubtedly be even more controversial and truly turn this article into a battleground.

  As mere wikipedians, we are not going to be engaging in primary debate and wax philosophical with our pinky fingers out as we sip our tea and discuss world politics; we go with the secondary RSs on this matter. It is clear that the best example by far for illustrating an example of a people that consider themselves a nation that is not already a sovereign state is the Palestinians. Why, our own article on State of Palestine states that The State of Palestine is quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms, so the logic is inescapable that if they are this close to being a sovereign state, they are without a doubt a “nation that is a community of people sharing a common territory and government but is not a sovereign state.”

  I see zero need for a bias tag as it appears just to be the product of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and more trying to turn en.Wikipedia into a battleground. Tag deleted. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Greg L's reversion and explanation above make eminent sense. We are giving a good example here, not trying to list many instances. There are other pages that purport to be complete lists. I support returning the article to the state he suggests. GFHandel ♬  23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Palestinian Arabs already have a nation-state: Jordan. Fudusiamli (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC

• And that sort of attitude underlies precisely what this issue is about: trying edit articles so as to push a politically motivated point of view rather than follow the RSs. Greg L (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to read what a template actually says before removing them. The POV template says that:

"The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

while the undue template says that:

"An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message."

In short they don't say that "this section is biased!" but rather that there is a dispute, and as they also say should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But no contrary debate is forthcoming. GFHandel ♬  19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Great, Blue-Haired Lawyer, so get in the saddle and discuss; just like GFHandel is saying. Let’s see you advance a cogent counter-argument that is supported by Wikipedia’s principles, rules, and guidelines. That’s the way these things work. And in case you don’t know, the dispute is “resolved” when there is a consensus to resolve things a certain way; they are not to be used to signal that someone is dissatisfied with the consensus view and wants to cross their arms across their chests and pout. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My point was really one of process not result. An edit war over the appropriateness of a POV template is a dispute over the existence of a dispute. When Greg L say that: "The objections have been discussed. The complaint does not withstand scrutiny based on what the RSs say on this matter" it strikes me that instead of saying that there's no dispute, he's just saying that the other side's argument is weak. That's not a reason for removing a POV template IMHO.

As for the sources there's three:

1. A link to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech. A primary source is hardly ideal. Ahmadinejad can hardly be considered reliable either. It's not so far from quoting Gaddafi concerning the current situation in Libya. Frankly, it's a bit of a Aunt Sally source designed to denigrate the idea of Palestinian nationhood by associating it with a madman. Hence a valid accusation of intended bias.

2. A link to an article on the international recognition of a/the Palestinian state which concerns itself with international law. It doesn't get anywhere near the of the concept of a stateless nation. It's not a topic that's even addressed.

3. An Israeli "op-ed". The best of three. It at least addresses the issue of national identity, although it hardly justifies the weasel words used in the sentence it's meant to verify.

An unverified statement:

"Palestinian nationalism in modern times arose between 1948 and 1950."

Why not just assert directly that the Palestinian nation is a fake of recent fabrication? This statement is clearly both unverifiable and biased, and completely conflicts with what's stated at Palestinian nationalism#Origins.

As for Greg L's points:

1. I'm guessing you wrote the bit about a stateless nation is a "nation that is a community of people sharing a common territory and government but is not a sovereign state," so it's hardly much of a surprise that Palestine fits. But that's not what a stateless nations is. A stateless nation sometimes has but more often than not seeks common government. That's kind of the whole point.

2. Palestine is a bad example exactly because many states recognise it as a state and not therefore as a stateless nation. Kurdistan is a place that no one recognises as a state and therefore classically fits the definition of a stateless nation.

3. Your point that Palestine is the best example you know of and shouldn't be removed just because it's controversial is daft. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion to seek final consensus on need for neutrality tag on article

• Fine. You have your opinion, which appears to be the product of not wanting to hear or see the truth. Let’s examine one clear point of fact: "Palestinian nationalism in modern times arose between 1948 and 1950" is uncited. In fact, I wrote Palestinian nationalism in modern times arose between 1948 and 1950. Try actually reading our own article by following the link if you contest bare facts. Take it up there if you have a problem with it.

  Now, I’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know that there are people who will argue things to death because they don’t like things and insist that tags stay until they get satisfaction. It doesn’t work that way. Tags are not the tool of the lone holdout to force an issue into protracted, endless debate. A dictionary definition of “nation” is “a community of people sharing a common territory and government” as distinct from a sovereign state. The Palestinians themselves consider themselves to be a nation in this regard, just as American Indian nations do. The Palestinians are the most well known example of such a people.

  I think you are just smarting over the fact that YOU tried to wax philosophical beyond all comprehension with a section that read as follows:

---

Conception of nationhood

Benedict Anderson argues nation are imagined communities that are imagined as limited and sovereign. The imagination is made possible by extensive use of printing press, mass media and capitalism. Nations are therefore defined by how the communities are imagined.

On the other hand, Eric Hobsbawm argues nations are invented tradition, include invention of education, public ceremonies and mass production of public monuments. The nations are defined by those invented traditions.

Ernest Gellner similarly argues there is strong tie between nationalism and modernization. His belief that "[i]t is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way round", is often quoted.<ref>[[q:Ernest Gellner|WikiQuote - Ernest Gellner]]</ref>

English author, Anglican priest and Cambridge professor William Ralph Inge famously said that "[a] nation is a society that nourishes a common delusion about its ancestry and shares a common hatred for its neighbours."

---

I rightly stripped all that personal essay out and now you are ticked off, aren’t you? And fresh off of your adding that custom essay by Blue-Haird Lawyer, you are going to wikilawyer over procedures and argue about the existence of a Palestinian Nation as “a community of people sharing a common territory and government that is not already a sovereign state.”

So I ask all parties to consider the above arguments and work towards a consensus on whether a “neutrality” tag is needed.

• Delete tags I think tagging that section is just a tool for those who are not neutral (read: biased) and who are upset with something that is neutral and factual. And also per my above arguments. This is just another case of “If we accept that the Palestinians are a ‘community of people sharing a common territory and government’ then that somehow strengthens the Palestinians’ arguments that they should be recognized as a sovereign state, which is a prospect I don’t like.” Well, that is unfortunate but the Palestinian Nation is the most well known and returns over a quarter million Google hits. Greg L (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to visit to offer an independent opinion. Therefore, I haven't read the thread(s) above, but just had a quick look at the article. Rather short, I'd say, and the final section (tagged) is a real problem: it can't help but be POV when it trots out just a few poorly connected and unexplored statements. I suggest this section be commented out and a sandbox worked on to produce a fuller section, with careful attention to balance and referencing. Tony (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I hate to break it to you but I really don't care. I didn't write the essay (as you wish to refer to it), it was there before I came to this article. The only thing that really bugs me is your constant stream of personal attacks and incivility.

In fact I did follow the link to Palestinian nationalism but unlike you I concluded that the statement: "Palestinian nationalism in modern times arose between 1948 and 1950", is an opinion and not a fact. And I take from statements such as "In 1918, as the Palestinian Arab National Movement gained strength in Jerusalem", that Palestinian nationalism can arguable be said to have existed in modern times prior to 1948. (There's also a fair question of how "modern times" are defined.)

I am not interested in WP:The Truth. You asked me to go through the section so I did and pointed out some fairly obvious flaws. An uninvolved editor came here and also considered the section flawed. As a matter of fact I think the Palestinians have as much right to be recognised as a nation as anybody else and would hope that the UN does recognise Palestine as a state in the Autumn. But this doesn't change bad writing and crappy sources. In any event now that I've given my own opinion, something which I try to avoid, I think I'll retire from this article and debate, and try and do something more useful elsewhere. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think its all about the RS support. The Jews, for example, are known as the Jewish nation. And were, even when they lost their sovereignty, and were dispersed in the Jewish Diaspora, after the 6th century BC conquest of the Kingdom of Judah. And one can point to high-level RS support for that.

So ... as to the Jews, and any other "nation" that has such high-level support, I have no problem with them being referred to as a nation. At the end of the day, however, a fact-specific analysis is required as to each.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can anyone offer up a better example of a non-American Indian nation than the Palestinians? It would be splendid if the replacement was a widely known example that won’t result in even more controversy? If there are less well known than the Palestinians, I can imagine a new wave of editors and I.P.s descending on us making complaints along the lines of “They aren’t community of people sharing a common territory and government; they’re just a bunch of [insert pejorative for ‘sub-human’ here] and have a few terrorist nut-wads amongst their ranks.” There has to be at least one such ‘nation’ on Planet Earth, otherwise the dictionary definitions are wrong (unlikely). Greg L (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

Blue-Haired Lawyer's comments on the tags are valid: Ahmadinejad, while probably quoted corrrectly, hardly makes a strong case for Palestian nationhood coming from him; the second link doesn't even relate to stateless nations, and the op-ed is pretty weak too, given that it just that - an opinion piece.

But I propose the following for consideration as a resolution: The section on nations without a sovereign states is a subsection of the overall topic, and it is covered by another main article Stateless nation. We could therefore have an link to the main article, with an introductory sentence and a few illustrative examples that fit into this category.

Additional examples of nations without states we could include are any or all of the following:

• Basque people ruled by France and Spain
• Catalan people from Catalonia, Spain
• Chechen people in Chechnya, invaded and colonized by Russia
• Karen people, fighting for independencein Myanmar
• Kurdish people, the world's most numerous people without a state, split up between Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
• Mapuche people of south-central Chile and southwestern Argentina, who tried to create a nation state by treaty with Spain in 1641, declared a border on the Biobío River...
• Tibetan people, ruled by China and now being subjected to cultural genocide...

Thus the section could look something like this:

==Nations without a sovereign state==

Main article: Stateless nation

A stateless nation is a group, usually an ethnic group, sharing a common territory and other national attributes, and considered to be a nation entitled to its own state, specifically a nation-state. Usage of the term is often political and controversial. Examples of peoples who claim, or are claimed to constitute stateless nations are...::

--Chefallen (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for User:Greg L

In relation to these two claims:

Nations that are a community of people sharing a common territory and government but are not sovereign states can be controversial subjects due, in no small part, to national security concerns of neighbouring countries. A notable example of a group of people who are sometimes claimed to constitute such a stateless nation are Palestinians.

These are problematic statements. First of all, expressions like "in no small part" are vague and unencyclopedic. Secondly, what is your source for saying that territoriless nations are controversial subjects due to "national security concerns of neighboring countries"? As a general rule, without anchors in specific examples, it sounds like WP:SYNTH. Who are the countries that have expressed such concerns? Who are the nations in regards to whom such concerns have been expressed? You follow what I'm getting at. And apropos vagueness, the expressions "notable example" and "sometimes claimed" are similarly problematic. What yardstick served you in measuring the relative notability of this particular "example" against other examples – assuming there are other examples in your inventory?

By the way, the section's only been made worse by the most recent additions. Now the article's become largely a polemic regarding the merits and shortcomings of Palestinian statehood.—Biosketch (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. See suggestion above for addressing the topic at high level and linking to relevant article and peoples to whom this topic applies rather than the long-winded redundant and clearly unbalanced section that it is currently. --Chefallen (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just deleted that whole section as being bad ‘cess. The section was already headed into massive POV-pushing debating world politics as if mere wikipedians are RSs. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable (perhaps, even wise) way to prevent the tail from wagging the dog, and the entire article to become engulfed by it (which would have been a bad result).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Complexity and the African Diaspora: Proposed Contribution

I am interested in contributing to this article aimed at defining the term "nation". As this thread of discussion suggests, this concept is extremely complicated. People have varying views on what a nation is, and no one definition is wrong or right. This is because nation is a perceived and socially constructed concept. Furthermore, the socially accepted definition of the term has changed over the centuries.

I would like to focus my contribution to first, addressing how complex of a topic this is in the opening section. In this section, I would like to draw on ideas from Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, a work that has already been referenced in this discussion. His work is essential to understand how concepts of nationhood have been constructed in the minds of humans over the centuries. The current definition is simply one of many ways that people view nation, and I would like to flesh out that complexity in the opening.

The other contribution I would like to make to this article is to demonstrate how the term nation has changed in meaning for some people. I would like to add a section which explains how the African Diaspora has altered some opinions of what nation/nationhood is. I realize this is only a small piece of a much larger history of how the term has changed over time, but it is a very key part of how the concept has changed from a racial description to a term implying some kind of physical statehood. The 18th century brought an alteration to the meaning and came to be more narrowly referred to as a group with a recognizable and sovereign government with physical borders. This new definition aligns more with the concept of a nation-state. The nation began to emerge in the late 18th century as the leading form of government and social organization. This definition contrasts from the earlier shared view that a nation is a group of people unified by language, region and cultural background; what is now consider to be one’s ethnicity. I have researched the diaspora and have sources, relying mainly on Patrick Manning's The African Diaspora: a History through Culture.

In my contribution I will carefully word my findings, making sure that it is not an essay that does not fit within the structure of Wikipedia. I feel that this contribution is vital in understanding the complexity of what "nation" means. Kristadurham (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mess

The lede at this time looks like this:

Nation may refer to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. It also says nation can refer to “a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history.” Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary defines nation as “a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government” and also as “a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)”.</ref> Nation carries varying meanings, and the connotation of the term has changed over time.

The second sentence begins "It also says..." but I don't know what "it" is. I'll remove that phrase, but someone may need to give an attribution for that quote. (Maybe Webster's?). There's also an end-tag </ref>. I don't know what has gone missing in the editing process, but that tag has to come out until someone can do some repair work.

I have no stake in spinning the article one way or another, it just needs to be readable.

zadignose (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

the wp:first sentence

I was thinking of tagging the first sentence with {{elucidate}}. It really should attempt to define the subject. The current first sentence reads as a cop-out, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ancient nations" section

I have tagged this section as potentially POV due to its very traditional view that seems almost entirely local. The sources come from within Israel, and state that Egypt was the first national state, followed by what it describes are the first real nations: Israel and all the Israeli tribes associated with it. This is Gat's view based on the Hebrew Bible, and it seems to ignore the Sumerians, Akkadians, Minoans, Babylonians, Xia dynasty, etc. It also doesn't classify "the approaching Assyrian Empire" as a nation, and claims that "ancient Israel was an example of a premodern nation", which is odd since we know so little about it for certain. Needs some very hard proof as to why these others were not nations or the section is more or less one-sided. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: I'm also not sure why Azar Gat seems to be mentioned so much in the article given that he's not very notable within this literature. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin as the main authority on nations?

Am I the only person for whom red alerts started going off when he saw that the lead to this article is, in one way or another, composed of either quotes of Stalin or responses to those quotes, in a share of more than two thirds?

Of the dozens of excellent scholars who deal with nations and nationalism...You make a lead that is mostly about a profesionally non-qualified totalitarian dictator?

Sorry, but this is nothing short of preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree completely, and I think that few people had such 'red alerts' going off because most people are more critical than you have been here. You are coming from the same kind of place as the people who say that we should not study Heidegger because he was a Nazi. Marxism and the National Question was written in 1913 (you would be a fool to not give him credit for his theoretical contributions to Marxism - he was a philosopher in some capacity whether you like him or not), long before Stalin's ascension to power, and if absolutely nothing else his conception of nation in the text is one of the most comprehensive from the period and remains one which is pretty well airtight. You can read the first chapter of the text for his various arguments for what criteria are necessary to say that a group of people constitute a nation. The article was previously very poorly written (and remains so - the definition of nation given is practically useless, saying that a nation might refer to one of a few already defined things; at least the inclusion of Stalin's conception actually made the article helpful) and the inclusion of Stalin's conception without that of others, but if a section about comparative conceptions of nation is included in the future then specific reference absolutely must be made of Stalin.-60.225.33.120 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • BRB, quoting Mein Kampf, written long before Hitler's ascension to power, in the article Jews. --Niemti (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't be so sensitive and propagandising. Your ad hitlerum joke contributes nothing. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Argument to replace 'Jughashvili' with 'Stalin' for authorship

Prinsgezinde, you made an edit on May 2016‎ relegating the information that Jughashvili was Stalin to a note, with the comment 'This was done to distinguish him from his later paranoid period in which he started called himself "Stalin". This book was still published under the name Jugashvili'. If this was correct then I'd accept the edit. However the page on Marxism and the National Question specifically says 'Marxism and the National Question was completed late in January 1913, with the author signing the work "K. Stalin."' (citingn McNeal's Stalin's Works). Therefore it seems that Jughashvili had started calling himself Stalin at this point, and that the work in question was published under this name. What is the work you are citing from? Does it prove that the work was originally published under the name 'Jughashvili'? I propose that the reference to 'Jughashvili' be replaced with 'Stalin', as this is both more accurate regarding the original publication, and more informative to the reader, to whom 'Stalin' is the more well known name. Thermocycler (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thermocycler, I used the source given in the citation, but I believe the one I based it on was originally in Russian. If it's traditionally attributed to "Stalin" in English (as is clearly visible on the picture of the article you shared) then it was my mistake, and it should indeed be changed back. Thanks for notifying me. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, yes I see there can be confusion as the Russian source attributes authorship to Jughashvili. I will change the citation to an english source and change the name to Stalin. I also think previous commenters have a point, about him not being the best source for the main definition in the introduction, seeing as he's primarily a political figure not a scholar! But it seems good enough until someone can come up with a better one.Thermocycler (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well regardless of his reputation, he was extremely influential (hell, there's an ideology named after him). And his definition is surprisingly accurate. It's not asserted as fact anyway; we're just giving one of multiple definitions. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stalin is not an authority on nationalism, Renan is

Please show me one credible source using Stalin as an authority on the matter BurnAfterReading (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Marxism and the National Question I'm not familiar with the work of Renan, so, maybe he is too. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Stalin and Hitler? "Niggers and Chinamen"?!

Does nobody else find it freaky and highly suspect that half the lead is taken up with Stalin and Hitler's particular formulations of "nation"? It's unlikely that talk of "Niggers and Chinamen" is what readers are looking for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not Stalin, whose only scientific contribution was the concept of nation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The crude racism of Hitler is significant, as his various extermination campaigns were based on it. He conflated the German state and the German nation. And, even there, did not understand the German nation's multi-ethnic origins. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder—the "crude racism of Hitler" is fundamental to helping a 10-year-old understand what "nation" means? Come off it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Adequate understanding of Hitler's racial and nationalistic theory is important. The ways he misunderstood the German nation is central to that understanding. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

National Identity

Is this the same as the article 'nation'? Perhaps a separate article needs to be written.ok

Bhartiya Ankityadav78077 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian Ankityadav78077 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

nation and civilisation

the word nation has more than only 1 meaning ...

in 1 meaning a nation is a civilisation ...

nation civilisation

both words end with ation ...

nation is a short word for civilisation ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F0B:6E00:3171:A7FC:E571:76E3 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)