Talk:Multinational state

message: This list is rather ridiculous. Can someone please explain to me what two or more nations comprise, say, Germany or the United States? This article needs some serious work. --Grahamdubya 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is a joke, it mixes nationality with ethnicity all the time... A nation is not an ethnicity. This article is so poorly written that it should ve removed entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.241.73 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed Canada.  By the definition of this article, a state must consist of two or more distinct nations of significant sizes to be considered "multinational".  For Canada to fit this definition, it would require the Québécois and some large subset of English-speaking Canadians to form separate nations.  The idea that this later group form a distinct nation, with a national identity separate from over-arching "Canadianness", would be highly controversial and is, I think, without merit.  --thirty-seven 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So native Canadians, I believe they are referred to as the "First Nations" do not exist? --David Barba (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the OP was referring not to total population numbers but proportion of population within a state. That said, I still agree with you that their position was absurd. ;) Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Canada 

message: The sources provide nothing but a trivial mention. Reliable sources describing what a multinational state is are required for verification.
:
--Hm2k (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Because if yes, at the absolute least China and India are missing. And the final list would likely be quite long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.14.149 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should each multinational state get its own sub-entry? 

message: Within Article 3 of the 1954 Constitution of the People's Republic of China, it is affirmed that China is a "single multi-national state", while the "national autonomous areas are inalienable parts". From this, does China count as a "multi-national state"? China itself has 56 different ethnic groups, including Han Chinese, Zhuang people, Mongols, Tibetans, Manchus, Uyghur people, Koreans, et cetera, and has geographical regions dedicated to ethnic minorities. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  China? 

message: Says the introduction, without any attempt at clarification or attribution, 
:"A multinational state need not also be multicultural and multilingual."
This is nonsense, in my opinion. The problem is that the links go to Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, which do not mean the same as the adjectives without the "ism", and whose "ism" doesn't mean the same thing in each case:
*Multilingualism: "the act of using polyglotism, or using multiple languages, either by an individual speaker or by a community of speakers". A multinational state is, of course, multilingual, but its people do not necessarily practice multilingualism.
*Multiculturalism: this actually pertains to an ideology that wants to blend culture, i.e. not multiple regional cultures alongside one another, but a syncretism of cultures with the ultimate aim of destroying all regionalism. So, a multinational states obviously is multicultural, but it will not, as a rule, subscribe to multiculturalism. 
These terminological distinctions are important. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how about something like, "Depending on various definitions of such terms as nation, nationality, multicultural, multiculturalism, multilingual and multilingualism, a multinational state may or may not be multicultural and / or multilingual"?  Definitely longwinded and perhaps a mite WP:WEASELy, but it pretty much covers the possibilities.  Jim.henderson (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiculturalism, in a strict sense, merely refers to multiple cultures living alongside one another. As an ideology, it generally seeks to promote the benefits of having multiple cultures alongside one another. The ideology of attempting to blend them together, is known as assimilationism, not multiculturalism. Assimilationism is an ideology that will often arise in a multicultural state, merely because multicultural arrangements are often very uncomfortable and unstable, peoples tend to either unite or fall part, so it's often used merely as a measure of self-preservation. Of course, it only works with varying degrees of success, amongst new arrivals (like has mostly been the case in the US - integrating immigrants into the general American culture, rather than having everyone walled off into their own ethnic ghettos), peoples who already have a lot in common, or maybe those who have been united for a reaaaaallllyyy long time. Of course, often what people mean when they say "assimilationism" is that they want the smaller to gobble up the larger, and the smaller is rarely keen on that idea. And meeting a satisfactory middle ground is often impossible.68.19.231.145 (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: multicultural/multilingual

message: It is difficult to justify the exclusion of France (home of Bretons, Basques, Flemish, Alsaciens, Catalans, Savoyards and Corsicans), Italy (home of South Tyroleans, Aostans, Friulans, Sardinians, Slovenes and Albanians), the Netherlands (home of West Friesians), Germany (home of Sorbs, Danes and North Friesians) from this list.  The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three entities, with the Faeroese and Greenlanders enjoying home rule (and some would argue that the Jutlanders are a nation in their own right, and that the people of Bornholm are Scanians).  Arguably Finland (home of Swedes and Sami), Norway (home of Sami) and Sweden (home of Finns, Scanians and Sami) should be included, along perhaps with Austria (home of Slovenes, Hungarians and Croats) and Switzerland (home of the Suisse Romande, Swiss Germans and Ticinese plus the Romansch).  In eastern Europe it is difficult to think of a single country that isn't multinational.  Skinsmoke (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: By any definition, Ethiopia classes as multinational, with a political structure that recognises the different "nations" within the country.  Skinsmoke (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia 

message: This section is biased. "and a dialect of Dutch called S.A. Dutch, sometimes called "Afrikaans" by pro-apartheid groups".  Afrikaans is a distinct language.  SA Dutch is not a language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperKlippie (talk • contribs) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: The UK and Spain should go under "Europe", not under "regional nationalist movements". The idea of the multinationality of the UK may be controversial and that of Spain even more so, but the concept of a multinational state is inherently ambiguous and its acceptance depends by ideological bent so in the end we'd have to put all states under "regional nationalist movements". The Spain section I find is little-elaborated, there needs to be information on Spanish language policy since the democratic transition as well as the legal status of what are known as historic nationalities. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 15:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK is a polity with a government. Scotland and the European Union are also polities. One can argue that the Commonwealth is also a polity. They can all possibly have a seat at the United Nations. But the Common Travel Area is not a polity, even-though the UK and Ireland are far more integrated than EU or Commonwealth. One should also consider the ambigious situations of Wales and Cornwall in the varying degrees of integration with England. Then there's whatever Britain's equivalents of France's "overseas departments/departments outremer" are! Hewdropsbow (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK and Spain go under "Europe" 

message: I think some information needs to be added about India. It was historically an empire made up of several independent states, similar to the modern day European Union, united by the British. Nowadays many Indians (and other South Asians) view the polity as a more 'united' Indian version of the European Union. The different levels of political integration can be seen with the fully integrated 'states', heavily integrated nations such as Nepal or Bhutan, mildly integrated states such as Sri Lanka, and blacked nations such as Pakistan. Hewdropsbow (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  India is a multinational polity 

message: Turkey was founded by Ataturk's Turkish National Movement as a nation state, a national homeland for the Turkish people. Now, I know that facts on the ground are that there's plenty of Kurds and Zaza and a bit of Arabs who live in Turkey's East, but on paper Turkey is the Turkish Republic, in fact, its constitution defines as "Turkish" all its citizens and the authorities take all this usually in an ethnic way. Officially, the Kurds are essencially, guests in the Turkish nation-state. That's why often you hear of Turkey bombing Turkey (i.e. the military bombing the East) - the government regards itself as the government of (ethnic) Turks.2A02:2F0E:52AA:9400:783C:285:6B6F:7F8D (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is slightly different...I do not know which is correct, though. As I understood it, the Turkish authorities do not view the Kurds as guests in their Turkish state per se, but rather that they deny that Kurds even exist at all. I have heard it said that they have said 'There's no such thing as Kurds. There are only Turks and Mountain Turks.' Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey? 

message: A 2500 years nation-state is a multinational state? We look at history there is only one national country in that region before the 20th century. All countries exist today there were not in the 19th century. And forget about history, Look at laws. Iran is a state for Iranians. there is no mention to any other Identities in Iranian Laws. And have we any people in Iran which they call themselves not Iranian? the answer is no. Even the Afghan immigrants call themselves the true Iranians and they say we are Iranians not less maybe more than them. 
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-i-perspectives  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.162.101.49 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran? 

message: ethnies?73.220.34.167 (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnies 

message: I would kindly like to know why being Jewish and American, is being used as a multi-national example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disifere (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's what Ilan Peleg wrote, so you'd have him that question. However, my best guess would be so: because, Jews typically collectively self-identify as a nation, and so do Americans. Furthermore, being a Jew cannot make an American not an American, and being an American does not make one not a Jew. And there is the answer to your question. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jew and American 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Multinational state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628044030/http://www.nazariapak.info/data/quaid/statements/two-nation.asp to http://www.nazariapak.info/data/quaid/statements/two-nation.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622084055/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_02.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_nac_02.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615160114/http://www.devon.gov.uk/sc-feb0659017b.pdf to http://www.devon.gov.uk/sc-feb0659017b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Multinational state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120153312/http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531133402/http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/russia-country-profile.html to http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/russia-country-profile.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110907093405/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/glossary/glossary-u.html to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/glossary/economic_terms.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516203805/http://www.orderofdanilo.org/en/family/index.htm to http://www.orderofdanilo.org/en/family/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Multinational state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.vip.org.rs/index.aspx?tabId=62&menutabid=10
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608053831/http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble/ws20/hogwood.pdf to http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble/ws20/hogwood.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Somehow, all "multiethnic" redirects on EW are pointing to this particular article, dedicated exclusively to the very different subject: multinational state. It seems that those few sentences on some multiethnic phenomena were inserted into this article in order to justify the present state of affairs, but it is clear that multinational statehood, and multiethnic concepts in social sciences are two very different subjects. This article is dedicated to the multinational state as a socio-political phenomena, and therefore we need a separate article for the phenomenon of multiethnicity. Sorabino (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree This article needs major narrative revision as it conflates multicultural/multiethnic states with multinational ones. As the articles on nationalism and national identity show, this is a very distinct phenomena and it's inaccurate to conflate pre-modern empires with nation states. Yr Enw (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multinational state, and multiethnicity - two very different subjects, not for one article. 

message: ,
in the lead we usually don't cite sources...could you tell me which sources would approve the rest of the list? If you check even this source or the Iran article about demographics, it is clear why the country was listed...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not clear. Could you explain this? Where is the term "multinational state" in that cited link? Plus it seems you didn't review the history of article. Iran was an unsourced addition by some IP-users. Then they added it again by adding their personal analysis too. What source(s)? All I see here is your very personal interpretation. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why it would not be clear? Read the the inclusion crfiteria and definition, these are reinforced in those I referred (not necessarily needed to have the term expressis verbis). Yes, I did not review the editing history on this..."What source(s)?" -> this was my question to you, any that would support the list of countries in the lead I meant...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did in your edit (and even your comments) is WP:OR and pure personal analysis/opinion. Article Iran does not say it's a multinational state. Where are the references? Where is that term? Every claim needs reliable source(s). Yeah, we can remove any unsourced entry from the lead section. No original research, no personal opinion. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree you to judge everything as personal opinion or OR, etc. Again, read the inclusion criteria and note the fact how many ethnic groups/nations are living in Iran and in what percentage, ostrichism does not help here in an exaggerated manner, if you do not get me wrong. Yes, in WP any unreferenced info may be deleted, but in a strict application of it the whole Encylclopedia would be frankly scarce. If you demand for every entry a source to be written down as multinational and ignore others sources that literally does not spell this very word but approves in the corresponding state living multiple nationalities and ethnic groups...well even if not WP:SKYBLUE, but quite a harsh approach in WP pratise, where close pharaphrasing is a daily applied and accepted method...(KIENGIR (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no judgement and harsh stuff here. It's just clarification of your edit. I have clarified why you were/are wrong. You cited a source in your edit which didn't support your claim. Actually my approach was very very soft by calling your edit WP:OR. Too harsh for you?! Judgement?! What can I call it?! It is what you did. You're not a new user. It seems you even forgot that we were involved in several discussions in the past; e.g. like this discussion. I don't understand your approach here. I reverted your edit, you opened this section, I told you why your edit was wrong and I asked you providing some reliable sources, but you just continue posting your personal opinion again and again. Where are your sources? I'm not the user who added an unsourced entry to the lead. You and those IP-users did it. WP:BURDEN is on you. Plus since when is multi-ethnic = multi-national? How does Iran fit in this article? Per what study, research, or reliable source? By your logic, people can add dozens of random countries to this article just because those countries have multiple ethnic groups. I would like to ping  because they reverted IPs' edits too. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You clarified your point of view, I clarified mine, we disagree some points. I think it is useless to repeat again, the main point that both of us expressed. Shortly, on that you are right the source did not spell the world multinational, but supported the lead definition of the article. Harshness I considered in a way of inflexibility. How the referred old discussion you consider connects to this? I think I explained clearly my approach. Again, it is not my personal opinion solely what I describe here. Source you got, so please do not state such invalid arguments like "You and those IP-users did", since only the IP-users did not provide sources. Yes, I am not a new user and I am aware of WP:BURDEN, you don't need to draw my attention to basic rules. I already decribed on which ground I considered the addition suitable, read the lead again. On that we agree random additions would be unfortunate and should be avoided, but per definiton even in the core, more countries could be added with no problem, even if in the supporting sources literally multinational are not spelled, but evidently they fit the definition.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: It’s obv most African nations are multinational as stated on the intro but what does the article do? Just state some 4 or 5 countries and talk about mainly non African nations than African nations itself. Pure bias!!! Nlivataye (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: Montenegro is the nation state of the montenegrins ruled by them and this ethnic group form the majority, so it's not multinational. 79.106.124.205 (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro