Talk:State (polity)/Archive 1

message: I've removed this sentence in a revert:
 Note that a sovereignty shouldn't be confused with a monarchy.
The predicate that precedes it should be enough to rule such confusion out: 
: ...a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority.
If i'm mistaken and the edit i reverted is is an advance, let's discover that by a discussion here.  --Jerzy 04:31, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
I certainly don't see the need for the sentence you took out given that the article talks of "sovereignity" not "a sovereignty". --(talk to)BozMo 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page one 

message: Early in the The domestic point of view section there is a line that read: Its students emphasize the relationship between the state and its people.
Maybe I'm just blind or not familiar with this usage of the English language (not a native speaker) but who are the students in question here? --Biekko 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The who in the what now? 

message: Since the Montevideo convention is accepted by some (declarative versus constitutive), in the introduction, shouldn't we recognize that although recognition by other states is important, it is not required under some theories?--BlueSunRed 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The capacity to enter into relations is the capacity to be recognized; this is why people make constitutive statehood arguments for things like the Tamil Tigers and Abkhazia on the grounds of the Montevideo convention. It may take two to tango, but the treaty only requires that you can dance - not that you can find dance partners. Adam Faanes 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: surly to have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states the UDI state will have to have another state willing to enter into an agreement otherwise there is no capacity.  Philip Baird Shearer 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Montevideo Convention continues in Article III "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts." Besides which, if the "capacity to enter into relations" were tantamount to the real existence of relations, "capacity" would have lost any useful meaning in the phrase. Adam Faanes 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth criteria has generally be re-interpreted as "independence" -- in other words, the state is not beholden or controlled by another state. Thus, for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unrecognized by every state except Turkey, partially because it is believed that it is more or less under the control of the Turkish military (and also, it is argued, because it was created because of an illegal act of aggression). The issue of recognition and its relationship with statehood is highly controversial. For further reading, I recommend Lauterpacht (1947) Recognition in International Law, Grant (200) Recognition of States, Dugard (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. For an interesting interpretation of this fourth clause see S v. Banda and Others 6 Feb 1989 'ILR 82' in which the supreme court of Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan "state" universally non-recognized argues, using the declaratory argument, that it is a sovereign state even though no nations will enter into relations with it.  FunnyYetTasty 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition Requirement for a State 

message: The following paragraph seems to have a subtle but biased tone regarding the current situation in iraq:
For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of April 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".
Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but after reading it several times it still gives a certain 'feel' suggesting illegitimacy towards International presense in iraq. It's very minor issue i agree however i do believe that paragraph could be writen in a more neutral form while still demonstrating the point. I'm refering to wording such as U.S. occupiers, plus "terrorist" groups, and U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.). 82.28.25.177 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrality 

message: This section seems POV to me, and I have removed it:
For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of November 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus so-called "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, especially the U.K.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state". 
I'd like to see some more citation and an NPOV re-write if this goes back into the article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, looks line an anon thought so as well above. Anyone have any thoughts on sources for the above assertions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be left out entirely; we can find better examples that won't attract controversy needlessly in this article, if we need to. The qualifications we'd have to attach to "Iraq [is or is not] a failed state" would have to be huge if we were to make it NPOV and would kind of defeat the purpose I think. Adam Faanes 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored a (short) discussion of failed states while making no reference to Iraq. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Better, but it would also help if you could cite a source for the sentence "These cases are sometimes called failed states". Who calls them that? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive 

message: I do not buy the etymology proposed in the article:
:"The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit."
The way I see it the the origin of state is The States, i.e. the feudal parliament representing the estates of the realm. (See also States-General.)
The word estates is again derived from estate meaning land or land ownership. Estate has its orign on Latin aestas, aestatis, Latin for summer. (See Wiktionary.)
(The way summer came to mean land is most likely that Romans owned summer houses, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.)
::Petri Krohn 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: Frankly, I believe this page is on the whole disatrous. 1. I tried to strip the definition to the bear minimum. 2. For instance, sovereignty is important for the first succint definition, but not the Montevideo convention. 3. A "definite" territory is not necessary for a state. There are over a thousand borders disputes. (i.e. the even the United states has disputes over the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico). 5. A government is not necessary for  the definition nor for the existence of a state. There is constant confusion between the government of the state. Finally, I believe that the user "cut and pasted" the definition of "State" from the Montevideo convention without analizing its theoretical implications and legalistic (normative) points of view. The said convention is marginal to the contemporary study of the state. Astharoth1 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I moved the above comment to end of page in line with convention -- Petri Krohn 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the re-write has been done well and more accurately reflects the state. I would perhaps add a more modern 'globalized' network  theory of the state to the theories section, however. Robdurbar 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I would argue that this section largely ignores more recent crtical theories of the state in favour of older, realist views Robdurbar 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm afraid any addition from me will probably have a natural geography bias, whilst this is probably more the realm of a political scientist Robdurbar 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astharoth1 rewrite 

message: I've just made an edit that I couldn't summarise in the edit summary, so here is what I did:
*Turned the ad hoc disambiguation link at the top into . IMO saying in the dablink what the article is about is pointless - if the article doesn't say this itself in the first paragraph, there's something wrong with it.
*Similarly, "For further information" turned into .
*The "synonyms" section referred to other meanings of "state", which are homonyms, not synonyms, so I changed the heading accordingly.
*Removed the flags from this section - what's the point in them? Country names aren't marked out with their flags anywhere else in this article, let alone the rest of Wikipedia (apart from a couple of templates).
*In the "international level" section, turned "see also" into .
*In same section, removed weird garbage characters.
*Other miscellaneous style edits.
Hairy Dude 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edit 

message: Perhaps a few examples of "entities which are states" and "entities which are not states" could be included: the borderline between Andorra and Moresnet, Vatican City State and Mount Athos etc. Were entities such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire states in the sense we would use now?
Questions - slightly tongue in cheek - several states have been declared bankrupt in the past. What legal (international or local) proceedures would have to be followed if it was decided to follow the normal course of action for a bankrupt organisation?
Rulers used to sell their territories to each other or the inhabitants thereof: could a similar process happen now, and what proceedures would have to be followed?
Jackiespeel 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of states 

message: Why is the Marxist view on the state given so much room, especially compared to the pluralist one? Marxist theory is only held by a minority of scholars, and only a handful of states continue to espouse such theory. Meanwhile the democratic pluralist view has achieved almost complete hegemony in the two decades since 1990. The current emphasis towards a left-wing minority view is an example of bias.93.97.89.55 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on Marxism 

message: I've removed this sentence in a revert:
 Note that a sovereignty shouldn't be confused with a monarchy.
The predicate that precedes it should be enough to rule such confusion out: 
: ...a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority.
If i'm mistaken and the edit i reverted is is an advance, let's discover that by a discussion here.  --Jerzy 04:31, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
I certainly don't see the need for the sentence you took out given that the article talks of "sovereignity" not "a sovereignty". --(talk to)BozMo 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page one 

message: Early in the The domestic point of view section there is a line that read: Its students emphasize the relationship between the state and its people.
Maybe I'm just blind or not familiar with this usage of the English language (not a native speaker) but who are the students in question here? --Biekko 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The who in the what now? 

message: Since the Montevideo convention is accepted by some (declarative versus constitutive), in the introduction, shouldn't we recognize that although recognition by other states is important, it is not required under some theories?--BlueSunRed 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The capacity to enter into relations is the capacity to be recognized; this is why people make constitutive statehood arguments for things like the Tamil Tigers and Abkhazia on the grounds of the Montevideo convention. It may take two to tango, but the treaty only requires that you can dance - not that you can find dance partners. Adam Faanes 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: surly to have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states the UDI state will have to have another state willing to enter into an agreement otherwise there is no capacity.  Philip Baird Shearer 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Montevideo Convention continues in Article III "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts." Besides which, if the "capacity to enter into relations" were tantamount to the real existence of relations, "capacity" would have lost any useful meaning in the phrase. Adam Faanes 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth criteria has generally be re-interpreted as "independence" -- in other words, the state is not beholden or controlled by another state. Thus, for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unrecognized by every state except Turkey, partially because it is believed that it is more or less under the control of the Turkish military (and also, it is argued, because it was created because of an illegal act of aggression). The issue of recognition and its relationship with statehood is highly controversial. For further reading, I recommend Lauterpacht (1947) Recognition in International Law, Grant (200) Recognition of States, Dugard (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. For an interesting interpretation of this fourth clause see S v. Banda and Others 6 Feb 1989 'ILR 82' in which the supreme court of Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan "state" universally non-recognized argues, using the declaratory argument, that it is a sovereign state even though no nations will enter into relations with it.  FunnyYetTasty 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition Requirement for a State 

message: A state is created when three of more people join together for a common political purpose and these people create a "jurisdiction". The restarting of a jurisdiction would also create a state, as long as there is some mechanism to enforce collective agreements. The U.S Founding Fathers contemplated this act in Amendment I.  by allowing the people to peaceably assemble and "petition" government to redress a grievance.  (a petition at this time would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus protected in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2).  This implies...that Amendment I and IX contemplated many efforts of self determination (or self government) by the people.  This skill and desire has been lost for many years.
Jim 21:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I realise this is both an old comment and off topic from the article.. but this comment isn't right! that isn't what a state is at all, not according to law, governments, academics, anyone in fact. doing that would arguably makes you a self governing political community, but certainly not a state. a state needs both de jure and de facto statehood.. that would have neither (Mattimeus 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a State 

message: The following paragraph seems to have a subtle but biased tone regarding the current situation in iraq:
For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of April 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".
Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but after reading it several times it still gives a certain 'feel' suggesting illegitimacy towards International presense in iraq. It's very minor issue i agree however i do believe that paragraph could be writen in a more neutral form while still demonstrating the point. I'm refering to wording such as U.S. occupiers, plus "terrorist" groups, and U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.). 82.28.25.177 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrality 

message: This section seems POV to me, and I have removed it:
For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of November 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus so-called "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, especially the U.K.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state". 
I'd like to see some more citation and an NPOV re-write if this goes back into the article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, looks line an anon thought so as well above. Anyone have any thoughts on sources for the above assertions? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be left out entirely; we can find better examples that won't attract controversy needlessly in this article, if we need to. The qualifications we'd have to attach to "Iraq [is or is not] a failed state" would have to be huge if we were to make it NPOV and would kind of defeat the purpose I think. Adam Faanes 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored a (short) discussion of failed states while making no reference to Iraq. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Better, but it would also help if you could cite a source for the sentence "These cases are sometimes called failed states". Who calls them that? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: Frankly, I believe this page is on the whole disatrous. 1. I tried to strip the definition to the bear minimum. 2. For instance, sovereignty is important for the first succint definition, but not the Montevideo convention. 3. A "definite" territory is not necessary for a state. There are over a thousand borders disputes. (i.e. the even the United states has disputes over the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico). 5. A government is not necessary for  the definition nor for the existence of a state. There is constant confusion between the government of the state. Finally, I believe that the user "cut and pasted" the definition of "State" from the Montevideo convention without analizing its theoretical implications and legalistic (normative) points of view. The said convention is marginal to the contemporary study of the state. Astharoth1 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I moved the above comment to end of page in line with convention -- Petri Krohn 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the re-write has been done well and more accurately reflects the state. I would perhaps add a more modern 'globalized' network  theory of the state to the theories section, however. Robdurbar 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I would argue that this section largely ignores more recent crtical theories of the state in favour of older, realist views Robdurbar 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm afraid any addition from me will probably have a natural geography bias, whilst this is probably more the realm of a political scientist Robdurbar 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astharoth1 rewrite 

message: I've just made an edit that I couldn't summarise in the edit summary, so here is what I did:
*Turned the ad hoc disambiguation link at the top into . IMO saying in the dablink what the article is about is pointless - if the article doesn't say this itself in the first paragraph, there's something wrong with it.
*Similarly, "For further information" turned into .
*The "synonyms" section referred to other meanings of "state", which are homonyms, not synonyms, so I changed the heading accordingly.
*Removed the flags from this section - what's the point in them? Country names aren't marked out with their flags anywhere else in this article, let alone the rest of Wikipedia (apart from a couple of templates).
*In the "international level" section, turned "see also" into .
*In same section, removed weird garbage characters.
*Other miscellaneous style edits.
Hairy Dude 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edit 

message: Perhaps a few examples of "entities which are states" and "entities which are not states" could be included: the borderline between Andorra and Moresnet, Vatican City State and Mount Athos etc. Were entities such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire states in the sense we would use now?
Questions - slightly tongue in cheek - several states have been declared bankrupt in the past. What legal (international or local) proceedures would have to be followed if it was decided to follow the normal course of action for a bankrupt organisation?
Rulers used to sell their territories to each other or the inhabitants thereof: could a similar process happen now, and what proceedures would have to be followed?
Jackiespeel 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of states 

message: Before corrections:
:Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people.
I added the obvious link to Stateless communism; although it's only a stub at the moment, I intend to expand it (with YOUR help, I hope!). This is not really an error, though.
Errors:
*that socialism preserves private property
**actually, beyond one's own small personal possessions (like your shoes), you can't own a huge tract of land or factory or business and hire laborers at a profit
***More specifically, private property in Marxist socialism refers to elements involved in production e.g. the means of production, your car is not "private property" in this sense.
*that socialism preserves a democratic state
**actually, its a dictatorship in which the government suppresses all opposition
***ACTUALLY, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant as a transitory element after the seizure of state power by the working class. In Marxist socialist theory, dictatorship does not have the same connotations as a fascist dictatorship and is more in line with the ancient Roman notion. The goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to seize state power and democratize decisions more so than in current capitalist democracies which aren't legitimate democracies.
*that all states are illegitimate
**I clarified that Marxists see the socialist state as the lone exception (albeit tempororay)
*that socialism is a representative democracy
**certainly not true in USSR, China or other major Communist states - these are all one-party states
---the status of these countries as "socialist" or "communist" is debatable. Even if they are accepted as such they are specifically Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, etc. Socialism doesn't necessarily entail any such theoretical association.
*that stateless communism will be direct democracy. 
**Never heard of this before: how can there be "democracy" with no "state"? I thought it was more of a benign anarchic paradise
---democracy does not require a proper state as it is simply decision by consensus.
Please discuss any or all of the above, rather than simply reverting.
:And please do not make major changes and an unannounced archive at the same time, with no comments. You've been around long enough to know better. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous conception of Marxist socialism 

message: Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old article with a more concise and tightly focused rewrite based on text long languishing in my user sandbox User:172/State. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: It looks to me like your "archiving" is an attempt to
#cut off discussion
#make it difficult for contributors besides you to determine whether your massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions.
#"own the talk page"
Any of these 3 reasons would be grounds to postpone an archive. Please wait until and unless there is consensus before doing an archive. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving and page blanking 

message: 172 wrote this - sorry I had to move it because he didn't use the "+" function and wasn't editing a section:
:Ed Poor, the dispute might as well be personal. You are attacking my motives, and you don't even have a specific objection to anything in the content of my rewrite. Stop acting to prevent the improvment in the quality of articles. 172 | Talk 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should rather ask you that question. Your accusation that I am "attacking your motives" seems incivil to me. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed Poor, frankly I think what you are doing has an efect that borders on vandalism. And I'm not talking about your motives; I'm talking about the consequences of your actions. My rewrite is a dramatic improvment. You have no specific objection to any of the content. Yet, you keep reverting back to the terribly written old version based on nothing more than ad hominems. And, yes, you are attacking my motives and being uncivil; you already accused me of attempting to "cut off discussion," "make it difficult for contributors... to determine whether [my] massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions" and "own the talk page." 172 | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery from edit conflict 

message: Why is Marx mentioned first and not last in these cases:
:The state is therefore considered the most central concept in the study of politics, and its definition is the subject of intense scholarly debate. Political sociologists in the tradition of both Karl Marx and Max Weber usually favor a broad definition that draws attention to the role of coercive apparatus.
:*6 Contemporary theories of the state
:** 6.1 Marxism
:** 6.2 Pluralism
:** 6.3 Institutionalism
It seems to me that this article gives the sort of prominence to Marx that one would expect to see in an article of this type written 20 years ago in a left wing magazine.  --Philip Baird Shearer 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post puzzles me. (Did you read the content of the section?) You suggest it is somehow better to be mentioned first instead of last. Actually, it's the other way around. In literature reviews in academic works, the auhtor works his/her way down to the more relevant, recent work from the older perspectives. The same is done here. The section on contemporary Marxian work on the state is first because the leading Marxist theorists of the state (Miliband, Poulantzas, and Louis Althusser) reached their peak of influence in Western political sociology in the 1960s and 1970s. The work of Robert Dahl, the leading theorist associated with pluralism, is somewhat more current; thus, it makes sense to describe pluralism after describing Marxism. The section on the "new institutionalism," strongly associated with the work of Theda Skocpol, must be placed after both the sections on Marxism and pluralism because "new institutionalist" work on the state is (a) more recent and, moreover (b) a critical response to both Marxism and pluralism. In this sense, it makes little sense to describe the critical response to Marxian and pluralist thinking on the state before we have described the Marxian and pluralist understanding of the state. Again, your post is quite puzzling, because the structure of the section implicitly suggests that Marxian thought on the state has passed its heyday-- far from giving it more prominence. 172 | Talk 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering NPOV 

message: A distinction needs to be made between "government" and "The State".  The former is simply the question "Who (a person) may coerce whom to do x?"  The latter is the invention of Machiavelli, and is a machine, not a person.  The former has been always with us; the latter starts in the 17th Century, and becomes independent of its operator with the French Revolution.
July 2006 - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.118.255 (talk • contribs) .
:Not just that - there's also the distinction between country (something that can enter international agreements) and state (something that can sovereingly make and enforce laws, even if it has delegated some sovereignty to a larger entity). Zocky | picture popups 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government or The State 

message: I removed a section copied from the old version of the article restored by FETuriousness entitled "Philosophies of the state." I did so with strong reservations, given that the content is generally well-written, and serves to supplement the underdeveloped section of the article on "the state and modern political thought."
The "philosophies of the state" section, I think, cannot be salvaged. In both structure and content the section is based on the thesis of the original author, whoever he/she was, that there are specifically "four theories about the origin (and indirectly the justification) of the state." Yet categorizing the history of political thought is tremendously difficult and contested. The original author's thesis "four theories can accommodate the full spectrum of political views"  (contractarianism, liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism) on the state is reasonable, but too constraining.
Since classical antiquity, different political theorists have been drawing up different taxonomies for understanding different types of states and different ways of understanding the state. The article should focus itself on reporting different the different theories of the state, without becoming, like the "philosophies" section restored by FETuriousness, a work of state theory itself.  In this sense, the article is best organized (a) chronologically, or (b) by the political and cultural context, rather than according to taxonomies developed by Wikipedia editors. 172 | Talk 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disputed section is here: /Philosphies of the state.  There does seem to be some OR-ish concern there.  But I think some rewording might be able to address it, shy of broad deletion.  For example, we need not claim that the four theories presented are exhaustive, but just that they are notable.  I think probably something shorter with links to corresponding articles would suffice though. LotLE×talk 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can figure out how to reword, that'd be great. The section isn't badly written and the OR isn't unreasonable, as far as I can tell. I was trying to do so myslef, but I was having trouble. 172 | Talk 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Philosophies of the state" 

message: I'd like to encourage someone to take on these terms, given all the discussion these days about the risks that state failure or weak states present to the rest of the world.  Thanks, anyone who has time to do this.--Mack2 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be may area of expertise. I'll get around to expanding the coverage, hopefully. 172 | Talk 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered there's a decent stub of an article on Failed state, but it addresses only the issue of control over the use of force (a definitional criterion of a state) and not the causes and consequences, nor the broader issue of state institutionalization and legitimation (ability to rule without the use of force), performance, and so on.--Mack2 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Failure, Weak and Strong States, Institutionalization 

message: Part of a state may secede (e.g. East Timor, Montenegro), forming a new state.
This presents an inacurate historical account why East Timor is not a part of Indonesia. East Timor did not secede, but rather succeeded (with some help from non-Timorese) in getting Indonesia to end their illegal occupation. Besides Indonesia itself, the only other state to recognize Indonesia's claim to the territory and authority over the people that lived there was Australia. So besides people's own observations, there also was no legal status of East Timor being a part of Indonesia and therefore no secession. Rather it fits with the first line (However, a state or area which is only "occupied" by another state does not lose its statehood.) So I am moving East Timor to this line.  LobotzRobtz 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secession 

message: "State" is perhaps the worst word in the English language because it can refer to either a country (the independent state of wherever) or a government (power is excercised through the state), and the difference between these two things is one of the biggest issues in political philosophy and science. VolatileChemical 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition and usage 

message: Why do I keep getting blocked? someone is editing under "sweet nikki" and it rikasheys onto my computer, all i have to say is, SWEET NIKKI, GET OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!
hoping sweetnikki will listen,
Anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.5 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I have changed the paragraph relating to statehood and international law, because it confuses international law and municipal law. For national courts, like US courts the recognition of state X by the US government does have an impact on the proceedings. 
In an international court, statehood is defined by the 'Montevideo Convention on on the Rights and Duties of States 1933'. According to the convention is a territorial administration is a state if it has (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government in control of the territory, (4) capacity to enter into relations with other states (international relations can exist without recognition like in the case of Israel and Arab states). Opinion 1 of the Badinter Commission on the question of the status of Croatia (and others) declared 'the existence or disappearance of the State is a question of fact; ... the effects of recognition of other States are purely declaratory'. The only exception to the de facto statehood is when a state is seized by illegal means e.g. the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey. In this case the previous government remains the state although they have lost de facto control. This, however, does not depend on the recognition of states but on the legality of the acts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.99.211 (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  international law and statehood 

message: I reverted to a previous version because states are often recognized de jure as such even if the governments that represent them have attained power by means deemed illegal within the country; otherwise many dictators would never be recognized as proper representatives of their states, when in fact they are. Moreover, the point of the section was to point to states (such as Somalia) that are represented by governments which do not actually control their territories, but are still understood to be the proper representatives of a territory Xmarquez 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  de jure and de facto statehood 

message: Hello, I'm a fresh one in Wikipedia, but I wanna make a question: Why there isn't a best definiton of National State & Federated State?It's only a sugestion.TKS . {Bryard (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new definition of State 

message: I guess there is some overlap between the two? How can this be resolved? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat related to my question.  Every IR/Comparative Politics course I've taken has a definition of The State that I haven't seen in any of the Wikipedia/Wikiversity/Wikibooks pages on the topics.  I think that including that definition would go a long way to clarifying your question. Josterhage (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Government]] and [[state]] 

message: can someone elaborate on the last part of this sentence:
Whaites has argued that in developing countries there are dangers inherent in promoting strong civil society where states are weak, risks that should be considered and mitigated by those funding civil society or advocating its role as an alternative source of service provision
thanks 216.80.119.92 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaites' sentence 

message: Article 1. A state is a large suburb consisting of cities and counties.
Article 2. Due to disambiguousity, a large suburb is commonly refered to as a state.
Article 3. In England a state is an oversized suburb which is not to be confused with a english province which is an accumilation of states.
  
Article 4. A country is a country, which is not a state, or province, but the combined entity thereof.
Article 5. For example: The United States of America is a Province and/or country of States and/or Provinces. 
68.7.157.6 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper definition of a "State" is a suburb 

message: Now that this page has been moved, as per the above discussion, there are approximately 3,000 other Wikipedia articles that link to State, which previously directed readers to this article, but now directs them to the disambiguation page.  All of these links need to be fixed.  However, it is not so simple as having a bot change every link from State to State, because some of these links are wrong—as might be expected, given the ambiguity in the term "State," some editors linked to that page when a different meaning was more appropriate.  So all of these links need to be reviewed manually and corrected, and no doubt all of those who supported the page renaming will be happy to pitch in and contribute to this effort.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major link repair project 

message: I've added the Globalize template to the history section.  The section as it currently exists is well-done but extremely Eurocentric.  It would be useful to include material on the development of the state in other parts of the world (China, for example).  Unfortunately I'm not qualified to do that. Jd4v15 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize, please