Talk:Nation state

Difference between "nation-state" and "nation state"

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)

Good question. The idea of nation-state has become virtually a compound word; so I think the two may be interchangeable. But it certainly calls for analysis & discussion. Nobs01 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, we might have to speak of "political nation states", if this article is to hold any water, seeing the United Nations is made up of 189 member nations-states. Nobs01 23:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

The article speaks of the term "nation" as meaning "people", not a "government"; this is absolutely correct. However, "nation" in its common evolved meaning today does not necessarily mean common racial or ethnicity. A "nation-state" is "people living under a common government", regardless of ethnic & racial origins, as a civilization does not necessissarily denote some common racial of ethnicity. People of the same race belong to different nations & civilizations; as people of a common civilization belong to different races and nations. When the sons of Charlemagne divided the kingdom between those of the same nation who adopted a Latinized version of thier originally Teutonic langauge, the French nation-state was born. Their ethnic brothers & cousins who kept their Teutonic dialect gave birth to the German nation (it was a while before it got organized into a common political entity). Nevertheless, it ultimatley became a divided "nation", as this article defines it, speaking two seperate languages yet sharing a common ethnicity. So it's pretty obvious today, the meaning of the term has evolved.Nobs01 23:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Can any of this information be sourced?Nobs01 15:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, now it's looking clearer. Thx Nobs01 00:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diaspora and irredentism

The present version confuses the existence of a diaspora with cross-border minorities. The 'greater' nationalisms are seen as related to diaspora. The correct term is irredentism, that is, nationalist claims to neighbouring territory on the grounds that it is part of the national homeland. Usually no 'diaspora' lives there, but simply members of an ethnic group who have ended up on the wrong side of the border. The author of this section does not seem to know the term irredentism, which has its own separate article. The list of 'greater' nationalisms belongs there. Some of them are pan-nationalisms, which is again different from irredentism. I will add later a section on nationalist responses to the fact the the nation-state border usually does not match the location of the national group.Ruzmanci 8 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

A good distinction, Ruzmanci. Excellent re-edit. Haven't edited at Irredentism myself for months. An effective difference between diaspora and the situation claimed by irredentists is Urrecht, the claim to territory inhabited since "time immemorial", which is always inextricably involved in irredentism, justifying it in the eyes of its proponents. In your edit "In the ideal model of the nation state, the population consists primarily of members of that nation" ideal and primarily are denying one another: wouldn't the description of an ideal nation-state improve with this clause dropped out, viz: "In its ideal model, the state not only houses the nation, but protects it and its national identity." Could you make a statement about Revanchism in this article to link the two articles? And I think "nation" needs the briefest clarifying definition at its first appearance, for the concept is clouded by the common usage as a synonym of "state". --Wetman 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Whole section is now added with mostly new text, existing links to irredentist movements were kept, except greater Poland which turns out te be the name of a province. Link revanchism added. See below.Ruzmanci

two types of nation-states

There are two types of nation-states and the current article needs to be reworked to reflect this:

1. The literal definition: a nation-state is a geographical state that is largely populated by a single ethnic nationality, for example Japan or Iceland. Often this is promoted as an ideal state, in particular in the case of Japan, cultural uniformity and assimilation is said to give an economic advantage in the world marketplace.

2. Unfortunately, the term nation-state is also used incorrectly for geographic states that attempt to promote a single state national identity to promote their validity. The obvious example is Nazi Germany which attempted to define a single German identity. However, this is an extreme case. More typical would be France or Italy or China which standardized its languages into a single national language and to some degree promoted national identities. However, upon closer examination, it is clear there is no one French or Italian or Chinese ethnic nationality. As an example, one can look at the French-German state border, it is clear this is not the French-German ethnic border, in fact there really is no French-German ethnic border. The most glaring example of the error of this misuse of the term nation-state is when Switzerland is said to be a nation-state. Clearly there is no Swiss national identity and in fact the confederation primary exists to prevent a state (internal or external) from attempting to promote a single national identity, the most obvious example being the existance of four official languages which all students must learn to speak fluently. Rather than a state that promotes a single nationality, this is a state that attempts to promote existing nationalities equally without an emphasis on assimilation to a single state defined nationality. Another example would be Canada.

Is there a fixed definition for nation-state?

Science fiction

Not going to add it to the article because it would be original research - the article's already tagged for OR, but no reason to contribute to that =P - but it might be interesting to discuss the use of the term in science fiction. For instance, in Star Trek, Star Wars, etc nation-state is used as an archaic or at least less common term compared to a world government or group of worlds, in much the same way we use city-state today. Food for and by all this you can find examples to reach the point that this is all a bunch of bullshit.

Please explain

@إيان Can you please explain more about why you reverted this edit? Special:Diff/1351922162 (apologies if I didn't get the link right. You know what I'm talking about though...)

The text says: "Nation state" is a more precise concept than "country" or "state", since a country or a state does not need to have a predominant national or ethnic group.

I wanted to change that to "Nation state" is a narrower concept...

My reasoning is that Nation state, country, and state all have precise definitions. What this sentence is saying is that a nation state has a predominant national or ethnic group. Country and state therefore are broader categories. They include nation state, but they also include other states that don't have a single predominant national/ethnic group.

Ironically, "narrower" is the more precise wording here. Slava570 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Does this all come from sourcing or is it your opinion? إيان (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I would delete the whole sentence. It doesn’t seem to be grounded in sources and doesn’t seem to be in the body. It’s not helpful in either version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It was a copy edit and neither added to nor subtracted from any sourcing, but was intended to make the sentence clearer without introducing any fundamental changes. But if the sentence is bad to begin with, I'm ok with deleting it. Slava570 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the sentence is supported by the article as well as the sources directly before the sentence. The article is defining nation as "a community based on a common identity" or something akin to an ethnicity. Source 1 says When the state and the nation coincide territorially and demographically, the resulting unit is a nation-state. Later in the "Before the nation-state" section, it says "In Europe, during the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multiethnic empires." And there are a lot of other similar mentions throughout the article (some unsourced, but some sourced as well).

The idea is that a state or country may have one or more nations (based on identity), but a nation state is where a state is centered around a single nation, so it's a narrower concept. Another way to think about it is that a nation here is a demographic thing, whereas state is a territorial thing. Nation state is where both "coincide." There might be a better way to convey this, but I think the sentence is basically ok. Slava570 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Thenightaway, you deleted the sentence. I think the sentence was a valid paraphrasing of the quotes in the sources. The lead also doesn't need to be sourced if the body has the pertinent info. Would you mind explaining why you think that's not the case? Slava570 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

But doesn't the first sentence already say that? I don't see what the added text adds and how it is indisputably accurate. It seems WP:OR to be writing up whether this makes the nation-state narrower and more precise than other kinds of entities. Thenightaway (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you're right. The first sentence is now a more succinct definition. I thought the second sentence was good because I think average readers may use nation and nation-state interchangeably, and I thought it was useful to stress the difference between the two terms. But I guess it doesn't matter that much and the first sentence basically covers it anyway... Slava570 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Meta line discussing article in the lede

The lede states "This article mainly discusses the more specific definition of a nation-state as a typically sovereign country dominated by a particular ethnicity." This line is a bit meta, and I've never seen one like it on a Wikipedia page. Is it appropriate? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right, it's really weird. I doubt there'll be any opposition to removing it Yr Enw (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)