Talk:Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess
    .

Edit suggestion.

"A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2]"

I propose this reads "A nation is now generally considered more political than ethnic." since this has only been true since 1960-70. For the entirety of the rest of history the opposite was true. Perhaps the line should actually reflect that now I think more on it. I will leave it to someone who is an editor here to decide, but it should definitely not read as it does as it is very misleading. Nations have always been ethnic groups, which is why First Nations is such a critical concept. 124.190.192.20 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose This hasn't been true since 1960-70, it's been true since the emergence of nationalism in the 18th century. The central thesis of nationalism (which created the concept of nations) is that such nations should have their identity reflected in the state, or vice-versa that a state should reflect the predominant "nation" within it. These are explicitly political claims. And neither are you correct that 'nations have always been ethnic groups'. Plenty of scholarship (eg. John Armstrong and Fredrik Baath) has set out a case for distinguishing the two concepts. Yr Enw (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National day

National day 2405:204:550E:3956:0:0:12DA:F8A4 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleted section on Medieval Scottish nationalism

I deleted the following from the article because it was unsourced and I felt the section on Medieval nations was long enough. I am not opposed to putting it back in, so here it is:

Another example of Medieval nationalism[

Scottish Wars of Independence. The purpose of the document was to demonstrate to the Pope that Scotland was indeed a nation of its own, with its own unique culture, history and language and that it was indeed an older nation than England. The document went on to justify the actions of Robert the Bruce and his forces in resisting the occupation and to chastise the English for having violated Scottish sovereignty without justification. The propaganda campaign supplemented a military campaign on the part of the Bruce, which after the Battle of Bannockburn was successful and eventually resulted in the end of England's occupation and recognition of Scottish independence on the part of the English crown. The document is widely seen as an early example of both Scottish nationalism and popular sovereignty.[by whom?] Yr Enw (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

"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)[reply]