Talk:Nation state

message: The terms "nation-state" and "nation state" are used in the article, seemingly interchangably, but I am not sure. Is there a difference between the two? I find "nation-state" at dictionary.com, but not the other. Is the second even correct, or should it be replaced with the first? Authr 04:25, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
:Then you could make all references in Wikipedia "nation-state." Try the Search feature "nation state *" (with the asterisk), to locate all the "nation state" instances to correct to "nation-state"... --Wetman 05:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we begin with the idea of city-state, as modelled in anciet Hellas, then trace that through the "kingdom-state", of which Great Britain is an excellent prototype, then eventually "nation-state".Nobs01 23:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the history of politics perhaps, but these are each different conceptions. History is cumulative, but it is not progressive: parliamentary Britain did not "evolve" out of a city-state. It is technology that is progressive and cumulative, not history.--Wetman 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The apparent need for a term "political nation state" shows that "nation state" itself is not fully understood. See the bulleted explanations I added below. --Wetman 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobs01, though understanding that "nation" still has some conotation of its original natio, incorrectly insists that all political states are nation-states, simply redefined as "'people living under a common government', regardless of ethnic & racial origins" But "nation-state" is not an entity that exists regardless of ethnic origins: that's in fact precisely what it means. "Sovereign state": that's the missing expression that we're all searching for. Ethnicities do evolve out of common roots, as the East Franks and the West Franks that Nobs01 has instanced. 
Thus:
*A nation is not necessarily sovereign: Kurdistan, Tibet, Brittany.
*A nation may be sovereign, in a nation-state: Iceland
*A sovereign state may include more than one nation: Belgium. 
*A sovereign state may be constructed on quite other bases: United States, Indonesia --Wetman 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Very good answer.  Could you comment on the various nation-states on Arab origin, now consisting in excess of some twenty states. Nobs01 16:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Just by categorizig them in that fashion, as "Arab", we are limiting our vision: Let us ignore the thought that Islam is still meant to be a "community" that embraces all, as "Christendom" was meant to do, but never genuinely did, either. Yemen would certainly count as a nation-state, and the Gulf Emirates show that a small state can operate successfully based on a very narrow, even tribal definition of "nation", if there is enough money. Lebanon was never a nation-state: part of what made it so sophisticated, so multicultural and "European" at one time. But Syria by contrast is a nation-state, quite ruthless to its impotent minorities. Other comparative failures as sovereign states are sometimes the symptom of French and English map-making in the 1920s and earlier: Baluchistan would have been a nation-state, vetoed by oil-rich Persia (postage stamps were issued however). Islamic Pakistan is not Arab, but not simply a Pashtunistan either; it overlaps with Afghanistan in a network of less-than-national and more-than-national tribal loyalities, which extend to Pakistan's Northwest Territories. The Ottomans wisely knew to govern the artificial pre-Iraq as three vilayets: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. So I can't draw an overarching conclusion. But the bulleted ideas above still hold true. --Wetman 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx; your comments regarding Japan are interesting.  Samuel Huntington says in Clash of Civilizations something along the lines that Japan is the only civilization in existence today that is also a self-contained nation-state.  Also, what would be the role of a common language, like Arabic, English, or Chinese in the make of various "nation states"?  thx Nobs01 19:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well Japan does have a long history of enforcing its isolation: the only comparable examples are the universal isolation of mountain peoples, creating localized culture that may be expressed as a polity with an apparent unity from the outside. The meaningfulness of languages' roles lie mostly in the details of their unique histories. But their roles can be thought of as either active or passive, as  instruments of policy or as expressions or symptoms of cohesion. The details of your three examples are all different: think of their roles as vehicles: vehicles of religion, of "patriotism", of commerce, of indigenous culture, of culture imposed from without, of elites, of suppression, of resistance. I can think of historical situations where each of those languages has been the vehicle of each of those roles. So can you I'm sure. --Wetman 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now it's looking clearer.  Thx Nobs01 00:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between "nation-state" and "nation state" 

message: Don’t get me wrong, it is good reading. But I’ve seen shorter subsections than this one being shortened or summarized for the sake of avoiding taking weight from the article proper. And that’s what bothers me, I felt I was reading an article of history of Spain rather than an article of nation-state. Again, I find it really interesting. But the fact that I find it too interesting were the red flags as to why there’s so much weight on Spain, while Israel is just one paragraph and Netherlands two paragraphs. Spain has more than 15 paragraphs, probably more if you count the myriad of quotes, plus images. Please let me know if it’s just me. Thanks in advance.  TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are rigth, but not often can be described in detail the figth along the centuries of one etnic group for build a nation state (and still in construction) 31.221.227.149 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Spain subsection too long?  

message: The redirect National culture has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  asilvering (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:National culture]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]