Talk:Nation-state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why are nation-states successful? 2 Difference between "nation-state" and "nation state" 3 "Disputes" paragraph 4 Diaspora and irredentism 5 Article rewritten 6 Toynbee and city-states 7 More on Toynbee 8 Switzerland a nation state? 9 two types of nation-states 10 Criticism 11 Nation-states vs. NationStates 12 England 13 sentence 14 Deleted errors about the Dutch Republic 15 "X is not a real nation-state" 16 Article cleaned up 17 Blanket revert after clean-up 18 En-dash in "nation-state"! 19 Rewritten POV sentence 20 Post-colonial nations 21 Article needs cites 22 Remove original research tag

[edit] Why are nation-states successful?

Why have nation-states proved so successful and enduring?

They were historically stronger than city-states (Venice, Bruges, Genoa) and more in control of the raw materials furnished by their hinterland. They were more organized than leagues of city-states (Hansa) where decisive action was required. They were more cohesive than empires (Habsburgs). Plus, it just worked out that way. --Wetman 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Disputes" paragraph

The "Disputes" paragraph currently reflects misconceptions and misreadings. When the general article Nation-state is edited to be more emphatic and perfectly clear, perhaps this "Disputes" paragraph can be dropped. --Wetman 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

How would a "nation state" then differ from the German concept of "Völkische Städt", loosely translated "Peoples State"?Nobs01 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Perhaps such an expression intentionally blurs the two: its subtext suggests that those who are not of the volk have no authentic place in the Staat. I thought that this point had been made in the article as it stands, or have they not been made clearly? It's a Nazi concept, is it not? Quite clever. I've included it. -Wetman 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

That's a good inclusion in the article, and sraight to the point. Volkische Stadt is usually translated "People's State", but more properly would be "Folkish State" (not "Folks' State"). Hence understanding of what "folkish", in the German & Nazi context means. To be "folkish" is somewhat of almost a mystical nationalism among some Germanic peoples, believing something along the lines that the Jews time has past and "das Volk" now have become the inheritors of the title of the chosen people (not necessarily the chosen of the Judeo-Christian God, however). And of course, one can anticipate arguements. Nobs01 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

See these ideas at Völkisch movement. --Wetman 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Its hard to make sense of the disputes paragrah, as it is. A lot of the text at this article, which I am reworking, seems to suggest that only an absolutely perfect version is a real nation state. The comments on Belgium seem to mean something like that. Of course many states don't approach the ideal type, but the article should simply point that out, and give examples. Belgium is a nation state, but it is a disputed and weak nation state, thats what needs to be said. There are separate article on Belgian nationalisms to refer to.

[edit] 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

[edit] Article rewritten

The whole article has now been rewritten to match the rewrite of nationalism. The sections have a more logical order, the English has been corrected where necessary, and duplicates have been removed. The history section is still very schematic, but better than the older version which was merely one theory about nation-state origins, plus some loose comments.Ruzmanci 9 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

It's a good rewrite, but I would question one basic premise. The article seems to explain "nation-state" resulting from the break up of larger empires. There is a contrary view that "nation state" grew up from a smaller collection of city states, that ultimately achieved some level of political integration. Nobs01 9 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Text has been clarified. I don't know any example where a collection of city states became a nation state, in Germany and Italy only relict city states were left by the time of unification.Ruzmanci 11:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have an interesting text on the subject written by Arnold Toynbee, in A Study of History, will be glad to locate it for you, but it may take some time cause presently I'm deeply into another subject. Thank you. Nobs01 17:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toynbee and city-states

I would recommend three sections from A Study of History, beginning with

The Impact of the Solonian Economic Revolution upon the International Politics of the Hellenic World, brief extracts,

"...the Solonian economic revolution could not be carried out without enlarging the ordinary working unit of Hellenic economic life from a city-state scale to an oecumenical scale..."

What's actually being "carried out" here? Toynbee's theory of a "Solonian" economic revolution— which precedes the enlarged economic unit. But do the city-states depend on one another for oil and grain? Or does Toynbee have a Large Idea that the historical facts are selectively mustered to support? This isn't good history, just as Karl Marx isn't good history for similar reasons.--Wetman

"So long as the ordinary working unit of Hellenic political life continued to be the city-state whose limits had now been so far transcended on the economic plane, it was possible that a political conflict between city-states, in the shape of war or privateering or piracy, might at any moment arbitrarily cut short those oecumenical economic activities which had now become indispensable for the maintenance of the increased and increasing population..."

to give you a flavor of the content (Toynbee can be dense reading). This is by far not the last word. Once this material is digested, I'd be happy to provide links to

"The Impact of Italian Efficiency upon Transalpine Government", and

"England in the Third Chapter of the Growth of the Western Society"

for further development on the subject. Thank you.Nobs01 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If Toynbee provides us our basic working model of the nation-state, does Thomas Carlyle still explain the French Revolution for us?

This can be related to the political integration that the EU now seeks; to steal Toynbee's idea, free trade and economic integration cannot be carried out without enlarging the ordinary working unit of European economic life from a nation-state scale to an oecumenical scale...", or something along that line. I raise this cause as the article now states, nation-states came into existence as the result of a disintegration or breakdown of larger states (with no explaination how those larger states came into existence, a gapeing hole). Toynbee essentially refutes the nineteenth century view that civilizations grew up from a race based, or nationality based model. "The same civilization contains different races, whereas the same race belongs to different civilizations" to paraphrase his thesis that, national origin is a dead end to understanding how civilizations come into being. Nobs01 19:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Toynbee titles Athenian-era Greece as a proto-nation-state, but I have seen that elsewhere. But the key word is 'proto' because I never saw anyone claim that it was a nation state, in the modern sense.Ruzmanci 17:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In conext, Toynbee uses the Hellenic city-states as an example that failed to unify into a nation state. Hence the significance of the next reading,The Impact of Italian Efficiency upon Transalpine Government, which I would subtitle, "The growth of Parliamentarism", which in this case, resurrected representative democracy from the the Hellenic world, but still failed to achieve political integration. The final reading, England in the Third Chapter of the Growth of the Western Society, Toynbee observes England, with a system of parliamentary democracy, grows into a "kingdom-state", of which the idea of "nation state" is based. Nobs01 19:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Toynbee

The three above readings fit into Toynbee's overall theory of challange and response, the challenge being to create a integrated political order; Toynbee cites the response of the Hellenic civilization to the challenge by creating a system of bi-lateral treaties etc., that ultimately failed to raise the "parocial" interests of city-states beyond thier own horizon. The challenge then was taken up by successor Italian city-states that again failed (both those sections come from Part IV, BREAKDOWNS OF CIVILIZATIONS, and are symptomatic). The Contribution of England, on the other hand, comes from Part III, GROWTHS OF CIVILIZATIONS, where in fact England's response to the same challange was to unify as a nation state. Perhaps in studying this issue, one should take note of the term parochial state (and "parocial interests"), and understand how that relates to the idea of nation state.Nobs01 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland a nation state?

I thought Switzerland was a Confederation of nation states, not a single nation state. The Swiss Cantons were originally nation states (semi-autonomous regions) that joined to oppose Austrian taxation. Today Switzerland is diverse and represents many nationalities, but it is still a Confederation of states (cantons).

It is debatable whether Switzerland is or not a nation-state. It is a state, of course, but it's not certain it is a nation, since the 'Swiss' nationality doesn't exist, only 'German', 'Italian', 'French' and 'Romansch' nationalities do. Only Swiss citizenship exists.--Andrelvis 18:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wetman writes "Switzerland is part of the definition of "nation-state": no one "debates" the fact". Who made up that definition? There is no Swiss nationality any more than there is a European nationality. Switzerland is a state, more properly a confederation of states. There is no nation. Examples of nation-states are Japan, Korea, Israel, Gaza, Iceland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Eritrea, Kenya, Singapore, E. Timor, Samoa, Marquesas, Tonga, Nepal, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Liberia. In the U.S., Indian Nations are almost independent states as they are granted Tribal Sovernity. Hawaii is a state that could become a nation-state depending on how indigenous rights are resolved, likewise for Alaska.

The U.S. likes to consider itself a nation-state ("one nation under God") however reality shows this belief to be purely mythical.

Historians made up the idea of "nation-state" in order to discuss the rise of France and England as entities under monarch-headed bureaucracies. The term was not used in medieval times. Quibbles could be gathered under the topic sentence, "No nation-state perfectly fulfills the definition." Then, if Switzerland is not a nation-state, the above quibble might be thoroughly laid out and referenced in the article—explaining whose reservations these are— keeping the Wikipedia reader always in mind. Has a definition of "nation-state" that does not include Switzerland nor Eire perhaps been rendered a vehicle for self-expression rather than one of primary service to a reader, one might ask? --Wetman 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me it is just a matter of the English language. A state is a geographical entity. A nation is a group of people that share a common ethnicity or identity. Therefore a true nation-state would be a geographical entity largely composed of one ethnicity. Japan would be the classic case, though not 100% Japanese, it is close, what 95%? And the state of Japan is very closely tied to the people of Japanese ethnicity. Another good example is Israel, again a state that is closely tied to a people of a given ethnicity (we call them Jews). Of course, the counter-example: Palestine and Palestinians. The problem being two ethnicities claiming the same geographic state. How Switzerland could ever be considered a nation-state is beyond me, it is in fact the opposite, it is a loose confederation of states that tolerates different nationalities. There is no Swiss ethnic identity. Just one example: there is no one Swiss cheese, each region has unique traditions. Switzerland can certainly be divided into German, French and Italian "like" sections, however there is much more than just that. As for France and England being nation-states, perhaps that was once a sort of assimilationist's dream. Certainly there was the dream of "reuniting" the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire was never a nation-state, Italy was never a nation-state. Certainly the Holy Roman Empire and Napolean and Hitler had dreams of forming a nation-state. But France was never a nation-state, you had the major Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil divisions, which still exist today, though the language has been standardized. Southern France is quite simply Mediterranean, Central France is Paris, Northern France starts blending into German identity, in fact there is no French-German ethnic border. Modern France also has a significant Muslim population. The modern U.K. is certainly no nation-state. Was England ever a nation-state? Angles? Are we excluding Wales? Cornwall? Cumbria? Isn't the royal family German? King Arthur's Britannia? Are we supposing an Anglo-Saxon nation-state? In conclusion, in the English language, the definition of nation-state is very straightforward - what is interesting is what people have supposed to be or have been nation-states. The original 13 U.S. colonies were originaly largely an English nation-state, New Amsterdam anglicized into New York and New Jersey, with the French banished to Canada and Louisiana, the Germans given some minority status particularly in Pennsylvania, Africans enslaved, and indigenous persecuted and pushed west. Likewise, South Africa was for a while a nation-state. Seems to me the concept of the American melting pot in the U.S. presuposes a nation-state, with immigrants within one generation melting into "average" Americans, thus the U.S. is the state composed of those of American nationality. But does anyone still really believe the myth of the American melting pot? The myth of the "average American"?

Seems to me a good framework for this article would be to start with the compact OED definition:

"a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent."

Then figure out what states are nation-states and why. Clearly Japan would be a nation-state and Switzerland and the U.K. would not be. Proceed from there. Maybe eventually include dreams of nation-states to be with the notions behind the dreams. Maybe include attempts to make nation-states out of England or France or the U.S., again with analysis of the notions behind these attempts.

One other comment: the Swiss prefer to call themselves CH, Confederation Helvetica, the old Roman name for the region. In other words, it's a united region, not a nation or nationality. They could have attempted to form a nationality around the legend of William Tell, but they didn't - probably something to do with the legend itself - William Tell objected to the notion of a greater Austrian nationality. In the U.S., Thomas Jefferson objected to the notion of a greater Protestant nationality.

Another comment: after reading through the several wikipedia articles, I think a mistake is made in saying that the original empires of Europe broke up into nation-states. They broke up into smaller geographically based (divided by rivers, mountains, etc.) states. As part of the propaganda of state-building (perversely called nation-building), they may have been called nation-states, as if the nation-state is a better thing, but they were not nation-states. Germany attempted to create a nation-state, complete with the ethnic cleansing that would be required to create a nation-state in a continent with a history of many different ethnic groups constantly on the move. England and the English language may have attempted to create a nation-state. The U.S. may have attempted to create a nation-state. But, by definition, these are not nation-states, this is abuse of the language, for propaganda purposes. Seems to me the NPOV approach would be to clearly point this out, rather than continue to use language like most European states are nation-states, etc. Seems to me it is POV to claim a state is a nation-state when it clearly by definition is not.

In conclusion: Switzerland is not a nation-state, it is a confederation of states with a high tolerance of diverse nationalities, in fact, if there is such a thing as a Swiss identity, it is this notion that the state should not attempt to enforce a uniform nationality but should exist to allow existing nationalites to coexist without resorting to warfare or assimilation.

Maybe a clarification is helpful: William Tell didn't oppose Austrian nationalism because he was a Swiss nationalist, he opposed the imposition of any nationality over another, he opposed the notion of the state enforcing a common nationality, in short he opposed the notion of the nation-state for the Helvetic cantons, the confederation was formed in opposition to the notion of a single dominant state nationality, and still exists as such today. Switzerland is the anti-nation-state. How ironic that it should be labelled by others as a nation-state. Presumably the notion of no single dominant national identity, no lowest common denominator, is somehow a meta-nationality? Like calling Atheism a religion?

[edit] 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?

[edit] Criticism

It'd be great to have a criticism section to the article. I'm sure there is criticism addressed towards nation-states? - Quirk 11:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nation-states vs. NationStates

Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page to distinguish between 'nation-state' (this page) and NationStates the web game? There's no links to it anywhere, not even one of those 'Nation-states redirects here, for NationStates the web game, click here' thingies at the top. 70.68.181.169 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England

They expanded from core regions, Paris and London, and developed a national consciousness, and sense of national identity (Frenchness and Englishness).

Who ever wrote this has little knowledge of English history. If England expanded out of anywhere, and I personally do not think it did, it was Athelney. Also "Both assimilated peripheral regions and their cultures (Wales, Brittany, Aquitaine and Occitania), where regionalism and nationalism resurfaced in the 19th century". This implies that the Welsh stopped being Welsh for hundreds of years and then suddenly re-emerged as a nation in the 19th century. I would be interested to see that position argued out in a North Welsh pub!

Further this paragraph completly ignores the fact that England is not a nation state (and has not been so for hundreds of years) and so is not very relevent to this article --Philip Baird Shearer 10:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sentence

"Often the nation is in many ways defined by the state to build a nation-state, rather than the nation-state being built by creating a state for a clearly pre-existing nation (eg. USA, Switzerland, Belgium, etc.)."

This is not sourced. It should be, as it is more than questionable that any state at all has been built for a "clearly pre-existing nation". Several recognized historians argue the reverse. Lapaz 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted errors about the Dutch Republic

I cut most of the information on the Dutch Republic, it was full of errors, although it is a good example of how national mythology manipulates historical events to create a national 'origin myth'.

The Dutch Republic of 1581 is not the same thing as the Batavian Republic of 1795.

The Eighty Years' War included no 'nation-building' in the current sense.

'The Dutch' did not rebel rebel against Habsburg Spain, the revolt was initially local, inter-aristocratic, and did not coincide with any 'Dutch' political unit.

William of Orange only became 'an iconic leader of the Dutch people' after he was dead, when early nationalist historians began to identify him as such.

His (invented) title is not 'Father of the Nation' but Father of the Fatherland.

Protestantism was only the 'dominant Dutch religion' in terms of armed force - the Protestants were a minority, even in the areas they controlled.

'The burghers' therefore did not all share an anti-Catholic anti-Spanish mentality. Many of them remained Catholic, and they had more to fear from their Protestant neighbours.

The Dutch language as standard language did not exist. Holland-based dialects were only spoken in part of the area affected by the Dutch Revolt.

The Netherlands still has no 'single language' in 2006, let alone having one around 1600.

'Spanish religious persecutions' were matched by Protestant persecutions, in the areas the Protestants controlled.

There was no uniform national enemy, or indeed any national unity. Large sections of the population, especially in the South, regarded the 'Dutch' forces (not the Spanish troops) as 'the enemy'.

Far from 'strengthening national feelings', the military conquest of the southern provinces created a hostility to 'Holland', and a residual hostility still persists.--Paul111 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of Father of the Nation is quite common for the Dutch expression "Vader des vaderlands". The Southern Netherlands have little to do with the Dutch republic as a nation state, afterall the current country occupying that area is Belgium is still not a nation state. The common enemy was Spain, there is no denying that. The first steps towards a Dutch standard language were taken shortly after the revolt, which still doesn't mean they hadn't got their own language which was said. The Dutch did revolt against habsburg spain and william of orange was an iconic leader during his life. Rex 09:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Father of the Nation is not the correct translation, and the title is a later invention anyway. The southern provinces of Brabant and Limburg (NL) are not in Belgium. Spain was not the common enemy of Protestants and Catholics, this is a fiction of 19th-century nationalist historians. There was no 'single language' in the Dutch Republic, and there is still no single language on its former territory. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nationlist historiography should be treated as such, and not presented as fact.--Paul111 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a nationalist Paul111? Because indeed wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I will not engage in an insulting conversation just because you can't prove what you say. Rex 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, ladies, don't revert each other any more. Let's talk about these things. Watch out for WP:3RR - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles which are reverted lose all changes. If you don't like an edit then confine any reverts to that edit. Don't delete other edits unless you have a reason.--Paul111 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's the point of reverting, so they may lose all the changes. I thought that was obvious.

Now, I'm here and I see discussion. Now I'd like to know why you are right and I am wrong via the use of FACTS and SOURCES Paul111.

Rex 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You should not use blanket reverts as a way of intimidating other users. The article has now been cleaned up, and the sections simplified. The Dutch Republic has been noted as an early example of a nation state, along with Portugal and England. Some more details about these three could be added, although not to duplicate for instance Elizabethan era. The nationalist version of Dutch history which you added earlier, shoul be sourced. It can be sourced, but only to nationalist historians of the 19th and early 20th century, In addition, the version you quoted is that of the Protestant historians, there was a separate Catholic nationalist historiography. If you quote these historian, then you should identify them as such, and note that their perspectives are no longer accepted by the majority of historians in the Netherlands, except as an example of national mythology.--Paul111 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you watch your tongue with who you call a nationalist User:Paul111, because I employ a zero tolerance policy concerning personal attacks, you've been warned.

As for your "improvements" where are the facts to back up the things you say and why is your version better?! How do you back up your assumptions on the majority of historians in the Netherlands as of now and how on earth do you make assumptions on the religion of the person who wrote that?!

Rex 11:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Under general system of verzuiling, the academic world in the Netherlands was divided by religion (among other things), until the 1960's. Until that time, historians at a Catholic university (Nijmegen) produced a Catholic-inspired history, historians at a Protestant unversity (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) a Protestant version. The Catholic and Protestant schools of Dutch national historiography originated in the 19th century, and predate the compromises of the verzuiling. The curious dispute about whether Rembrandt was a Catholic illustrate how the historians spent their time (or wasted it). There is no problem in identifying the various schools, and their biases, which more or less disappeared in the 1960's.Paul111 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, these are contempory times and old documents do not lie neither do opinions. you revision Dutch history and have no facts to back up your changes. Rex 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "X is not a real nation-state"

I moved all the text referring to both the ideal nation-state, and to what might not be a nation-state, into one section. I also moved all the historical text into the History section.

Some people think that, for instance, Switzerland is not a nation-state, as you can see from some of the edits. Although this article should emphasise that nationalist claims are almost always disputed, it also has to provide a description of nation-states as generally understood, and as they are treated by the theory. The article cannot base itself solely on the objections to the usage. If Switzerland is not a nation-state, then what is it? If Brazil is not a nation-state, then what is it? Most nation-states are far removed from the ideal of happy unified societies, which is how they promote themselves. The revised text acknowledges that.--Paul111 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article cleaned up

I cleaned up the article format, and some of the sections. Some of it was a mess, with some points triplicated, and apparently pasted at random in text about something else. The present version is more legible, and is a basis for expansion. However, the History section already has a lot of overlap with the nationalism article. Further additions to it should preferably not duplicate content.--Paul111 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket revert after clean-up

User Rex has, apparently out of pique, reverted the entire clean-up of the article. From his comments, he is clearly very irritated about the deletion of his material on Dutch nationalist history. However, he has not confined himslef to re-inserting that material, but instead reverted the entire article. All improvements have been lost.

It is a major problem with Wikipedia articles on nationalism, that nationalists see them as a vehicle for their views. The result is a cluster of very low quality articles. I have recently cleaned up the white nationalism article as well, and I expect similar hostile reactions there. Under the Wikipedia structure, there is nothing to prevent users choosing a bad article which reflects their views, over a good article which does not. This is what produces the low-quality articles on controversial issues, and consensus can not resolve the problem, which is inherent in the Wikipedia structure.--Paul111 12:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning, I consider being called a nationalist a serious allegation as well as an assault on me as a person.

I reverted your "clean up" as you provide no facts or sources to prove previous versions were wrong. You merely said "that's wrong" well on wikipedia, that doesn't cover it. You've been given options to explain your actions on various occasions and you deliberatly chose to evade them.

Rex 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] En-dash in "nation-state"!

Why is the compound noun "nation-state" joined with an en dash throughout the article? Surely it should be a hyphen. See English_compound#Compound_nouns. An en dash may be used in some compound adjectives, but not compound nouns, to my knowledge. Nurg 03:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The en dashes were put in, along with some diacritics, (see [1]), by Doremítzwr who is promoting unconventional usages (see Wikipedia:Why_opt_for_diaeretic_spellings and User_talk:Doremítzwr). Nurg 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten POV sentence

I have removed the words usually propagandistic from the education section under Characteristics of a nation-state. It is entirely subjective to claim that national history is usually 'propagandistic' when taught in schools. Walton monarchist89 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely subjective to claim it was history at all, usually it was bombastic propaganda filled with absurd exaggerations of the nation's importance, and often fictional events. That was later recognised in some cases, although many nation-states still teach this kind of 'history'. The 19th-century national histories are a major example of the 'invention of tradition' and their status should be accurately noted.Paul111 09:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidently you have not read WP:VERIFY. I haven't seen a single citation or shred of evidence demonstrating that such history was fictionalised or mythologistic. If you can quote specific sources, I will accept your edits. Walton monarchist89 11:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources added for the - well-recognised - propagandistic and mythical nature of nationalist history teaching.Paul111 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-colonial nations

I would like to request that more information be included on the question of nation-statehood of post-colonialist countries [most of the african continent has borders that were arbitrarily decided upon by colonial powers]; how do third world countries negotiate this? Is a country like South Africa [which has 11 officially recognised languages] a nation-state or not? thank you125.236.162.241 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs cites

Article makes a large number of bald assertions that aren't cited. -- 201.51.246.98 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the range of the subject matter, perhaps several hundred would be needed. There is also a problem with disputed territories used as examples, the article says they are disputed, but that may not be enough for some people. But first please clarify the problem areas, i.e. which are the 'bald assertions' in question?Paul111 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove original research tag

As I pointed out above, the number of references need for this article, with such a wide scope, is very large. The 'own research' tag is not intended as a way of saying "I don't like this article", but as a means to improve the article. It should prefereably be accompanied by an indication of what exactly is at issue, and which claims are unverified.Paul111 11:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since neither of the people who posted the tags has listed the issues of concern, I will soon propose to remove the OR tag.Paul111 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove the tag, if there is no consensus against that by 17 December 2006.Paul111 13:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed, no comments at all: despite the date in the signiature, it is 17 December here. Paul111 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back. The whole article is written ex cathedra. The large scope of this article means that every claim made needs a solid cite, since Wikipedia users are otherwise unable to verify them. If the claims made in the article can't be backed up, they have no business being in Wikipedia (NB I'm talking about the general statements, not those re: specific territories). --Dtcdthingy 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)