Talk:Nation

Simplistic

This article is overly simplistic. Nationalism did exist before the 18th-century. It also is not socially-constructed unlike race. I do think that someone should explain the difference between nation and ethnicity. Cbinetti (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Most historians and scholars of nationalism agree nationalism did not exist before the 18th century and that it is socially constructed. But I do agree with your last point, explaining the difference might go some way towards dispelling misconceptions like the first two. Yr Enw (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself heavily, from how I read it. The last paragraph of the lead section says the consensus among scholars is that nations are "a distinctly modern phenomenon", and then in the rest of the article it there are more quotes from scholars who are describing nations as existing before the modern era.

And just my two cents on it - calling nations a "distinctly modern phenomenon" after the description provided doesn't make sense. How was ancient Athens not a nation, where they viewed themselves and each other as "Athenians"? Ancient Athens meets all the criteria described and then the article just says this wasn't a thing until the modern era. I don't get it, and I'm not even someone who views nationalism in a favorable light. RTredwell (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The article has an balance to strike given there is scholarship that makes arguments (like your Athenian one) in favour of Nationalism in antiquity, but that the WP:WEIGHT of scholarship supports the notion nations are a modern phenomenon. If there are issues with consistency, I think these can probably solved by couching everything in “X argues Y” language, more than Wikivoice. Yr Enw (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

For my part, the distinguishing features of nations as opposed to other collective identities in history is really the relationship with the state, lateral application across social classes, and the concept of a demarcated territorial extent. Perhaps these things can be more greatly emphasised. Yr Enw (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, none of that is relevant for example to formation of Palestinian nation, as it has no demarcated territory, which pretty much sums up that nation formation, as we understand it nowadays, has exploitable weaknesses, with mimicry of how nations were formed before.

Unless there has been a radical change of what Nations and Nationalism means, our modern definitions of these terms comes from USA and French revolutions, where bourgeoisie society overthrew feudal system, pretty much based on what Swiss burgers did before.

Ancient Greek republic of Athens can not be considered as modern nation, because it contradicts the principles of Revolution: liberte egalite fraternite, which were accepted as key components for creation of new nations. ~2026-12304-37 (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, but the definition does not define what are not nations, as by current definition nations are self-organized sovereign territories, that are part of UN, but clearly 1. Modern nations exist from 18th century - long before UN was created and 2. given that membership in UN can't be defining for nations(for example Scotland and Wales are not represented in UN, but they ARE Nations). I have some memories, that wiki article was not as idiotic, as current state, because nations can exist also without territories and national identity most of the times is formed before state is created.

As for the question what is the difference between ethnicity and nation - they both are social constructs, but there is difference that ethnicity is naturally evolved historical social construct, while you can form a nation at ANY time around any idea - including that members of ethnic society(that believe that they share similar ideas and origins) are forming their own nation and if you wish you can form a nation of fishers, or even believers in Flat Earth can also be formed as a nation, not to mention that people in future Moon or Mars colonies can decide upon forming their own nation. Regardless - all the nations are formed around some idea, that unifies people, like Pakistan has been formed as nation on religious grounds, based on belief that they are(or intend to be) more "religiously" pure than other people.

The key concept of Nationalism is that previously in Western civilization it was nearly impossible to form a nation(as self-governing independent sovereign state, like Swiss did), as Feudalism did not allow representation of people, but kings only. Unfortunately, but language and terminology is fuzzy about these things in modern times - very much thanks to UN - not all countries exist as nations, because they lack key element - people of those "nations" are not representing them - not even their rulers are elected by those nations, as they have usurped the power and therefore are not nations. So, no matter what they might think, but North Korea is not a nation, and there are many other countries, that are ruled without representation of people, that should not be regarded as nations, because they are not. ~2026-12304-37 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

"A nation is"... nothing per se

It by now has so many fundamentally different definitions that one cannot start with "A nation is X", unless using "an English noun" for X. The lead must reflect this from the very start, everything else is babbling and/or cheating.

The medieval Latin-speakers had one concept (at least), which still survives.

Enlightenment, followed by the French Revolution, had a very different one.

My Blut & Boden friends stick to their own.

The American tribes followed by the PC crowd have pushed trough yet another use.

The "let's please all" crowd goes with nation = self-governing country (condition: large area), or = the people living within. They've pensioned the term "nation state", only Zarathustra knows why.

So let's try to be accurate. Arminden (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Qaum

An article Qaum pertaining to the concept in Muslim world seem to have been deleted before few weeks with little discussion as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaum.

I am coming across relevant reliable refs relating that topic and not sure I can update this article in reference to Qaum? Bookku (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thousands years ago humanity without nations.

Thousands years ago humanity without nations. most made up few centuries ago. for example moors not exists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors 176.208.32.129 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does Benedict Anderson have to be cited in the second sentence of paragraph two?

Citing Anderson describing a Nation as an "imagined political community" so early in the article quickly assigns the concept of a Nation a negative connotation. I understand his analysis, but is one that a) clearly critiques the idea of a Nation rather than unbiasely describing it (which is what the openning Wiki paragraphs are meant for) and b) is one specific, and small reality of a Nation. 204.38.4.81 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

a few observations:

1. Anderson is one of the foremost scholars of nationalism, it would be remiss not to include him. “Imagined political community” is possibly the most widely cited description of nations in all the scholarship.

2. No scholar is truly unbiased, our goal at wiki is WP:BALANCE.

3. Further to that point, whether you think his inclusion gives nationhood a negative connotation doesn’t really matter, because it’s not our job to pass assessment on how the topic in question comes across. Unless I’ve misunderstood your point, it’s our job to reflect what reliable scholarship says, and Anderson is the most cited scholar of nationalism in the world.

4. For what it’s worth, isn’t Anderson on record distancing himself from the more supposedly negative Gellner (although imo Gellner is just as apologetic) and saying he actually doesn’t see nations and nationalism as inherently negative? Yr Enw (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally, this whole article lacks consistency with Wikipedia. There is no definition of Nation, or even different versions, including Benedict Andersons version, where his prominence means absolutely nothing for Nation or Nationalism, as these terms existed for quite some time. ~2026-12304-37 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying/ There's no definition where Anderson's prominence means nothing? Yr Enw (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)