Talk:State (polity)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Page one

I've removed this sentence in a revert:

Note that a sovereignty shouldn't be confused with a monarchy.

The predicate that precedes it should be enough to rule such confusion out:

...a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority.

If i'm mistaken and the edit i reverted is is an advance, let's discover that by a discussion here. --Jerzy 04:31, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the need for the sentence you took out given that the article talks of "sovereignity" not "a sovereignty". --(talk to)BozMo 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

However I disagree that in casual language state means the same as country. In the United Kingdom everyone accepts that Wales and Scotland are countries (e.g. on football) but noone says they are states.--BozMo |talk 15:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland are more like principalities, little or no power to themself but make up a larger, more powerful whole when added to england.

Also you only disagree with state meaning country because you are used to the bastardised english of using state as the same meaning as county as in US English Cokehabit 09:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The who in the what now?

Early in the The domestic point of view section there is a line that read: Its students emphasize the relationship between the state and its people.

Maybe I'm just blind or not familiar with this usage of the English language (not a native speaker) but who are the students in question here? --Biekko 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recognition Requirement for a State

Since the Montevideo convention is accepted by some (declarative versus constitutive), in the introduction, shouldn't we recognize that although recognition by other states is important, it is not required under some theories?--BlueSunRed 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If a state is not recognised by other states then does it have (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.? After all it takes two to tango so, if a state is not recongised by at least one other state it does not have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The capacity to enter into relations is the capacity to be recognized; this is why people make constitutive statehood arguments for things like the Tamil Tigers and Abkhazia on the grounds of the Montevideo convention. It may take two to tango, but the treaty only requires that you can dance - not that you can find dance partners. Adam Faanes 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

surly to have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states the UDI state will have to have another state willing to enter into an agreement otherwise there is no capacity. Philip Baird Shearer 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention continues in Article III "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."[1] Besides which, if the "capacity to enter into relations" were tantamount to the real existence of relations, "capacity" would have lost any useful meaning in the phrase. Adam Faanes 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The fourth criteria has generally be re-interpreted as "independence" -- in other words, the state is not beholden or controlled by another state. Thus, for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unrecognized by every state except Turkey, partially because it is believed that it is more or less under the control of the Turkish military (and also, it is argued, because it was created because of an illegal act of aggression). The issue of recognition and its relationship with statehood is highly controversial. For further reading, I recommend Lauterpacht (1947) Recognition in International Law, Grant (200) Recognition of States, Dugard (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. For an interesting interpretation of this fourth clause see S v. Banda and Others 6 Feb 1989 'ILR 82' in which the supreme court of Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan "state" universally non-recognized argues, using the declaratory argument, that it is a sovereign state even though no nations will enter into relations with it. FunnyYetTasty 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a State

A state is created when three of more people join together for a common political purpose and these people create a "jurisdiction". The restarting of a jurisdiction would also create a state, as long as there is some mechanism to enforce collective agreements. The U.S Founding Fathers contemplated this act in Amendment I. by allowing the people to peaceably assemble and "petition" government to redress a grievance. (a petition at this time would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus protected in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2). This implies...that Amendment I and IX contemplated many efforts of self determination (or self government) by the people. This skill and desire has been lost for many years.

Jim 21:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophers since Rousseau

"Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau pondered issues concerning the ideal and actual roles of the state." Shouldn't we add some theorists on the State since Rousseau? He's certainly not the last word! E.g. Max Weber, who formulated the modern definition of the State - an institution with a monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. And Franz Oppenheimer, author of "The State." And Albert Jay Nock, author of "Our Enemy the State." And Leopold Kohr, author of "The Breakdown of Nations." These are some of the 20th century classics about the State.

Weber, yes. The others, no. How about Rawls? Nozick? Even that guy who wrote about the market state -- cant' remember his name, Shield of Achilles was the book. Grace Note 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good! Rawls and Nozick certainly spoke to the purpose of State. Nozick also did some work in 'invisible hand processes' that may justify some States. Yes, lets put them in. I'm a little surprised about your rejection of Oppenheimer. What about Murray Rothbard? ("Man, Economy, and State" etc.) Sample an essay of Rothbard's: The Anatomy of the State. That's my favorite "statism in one lesson" essay.

It's a question of stature. Rawls and Nozick are thinkers widely recognised and appreciated, whose names should be instantly recognisable to the reader in the same way as Rousseau's. We are not looking for a list of anyone who has ever had anything to say about the state, however interesting you or I might find what they had to say. Grace Note 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Curently the entire land surface of the Earth..."

User:Hogeye edited the article to include the following:

Currently the entire land surface of the Earth is divided among the territories of the roughly two hundred states now existing, with the exception of Somaliland (stateless since 1991 but unrecognized by the UN [1]) and the continent of Antarctica.

I previously corrected "more than two hundred states" to the vaguer but I think more accurate "roughly two hundred states," on the grounds that most if not all sovereign states and the United Nations do not recognize more than two hundred other states. Seven countries have partitioned Antarctica; the United States does not recognize these claims. The fact that these claims have been made by serious countries, however, forces us to qualify "with the exception...of Antarctica."

Somaliland is itself a state existing in the otherwise lawless country of Somalia. The author might have meant Somalia instead. The existence of the new transnational government complicates the matter, not to mention that most of the country is controlled by de facto states. There are other regions in the world that would qualify according to some rubric for being stateless - the interior of Colombia is lawless, along with the uplands of Uganda where the Lord's Resistance Army hangs out, the disputed Spratly Islands, Transnistria, the Triple Frontier region in South America, and probably a whole lot of other ones that could qualify with varying degrees of clarity. My point is that we probably don't need to be asserting any of them, particularly not in the introduction. It would be difficult to actively assert any selection of them without a serious discussion of what qualifies a state, and therefore statelessness, and why these territories qualify; a claim may well be enough, and since that is beyond the scope of the introduction, I think a vague reference to "disputed territories and the special case of Antarctica" would be better. Adam Faanes 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Someone wrote> "Somaliland is itself a state existing in the otherwise lawless country of Somalia."

This is mistaken. Somaliland is a stateless society, with competing legal/arbitration entities based on the Xeer (traditional law centuries old). What probably fooled the person above was that the UN does not recognize Somaliland - instead decreeing that the artificial colonial French, English and Dutch former colonies (Somalia, Somaland, and Puntland) are one State. This is simply a bald claim by the UN and those attempting to impose statist rule from afar (e.g. the constitution made by UN bureaucrats in Cairo, the installing of a Puntland warlord as "president" of Somalia even though the local won't recognize him, etc.) Anyway, if you study up a little bit on "Xeer" and "Somaliland" you'll see that only in foreign UN statists' eyes is Somaliland a part of Somalia. Hogeye 3 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

In order to say that, you have to assert a definition of government, and indeed, you have to force your definition of what a state is on others before we have even entered into the topic - ironically, since that is what you accuse the United Nations of doing. This is not something that deserves to be put in the introduction. Besides which, the "Somaliland" entity has an army, a constitution, and a central bank. Beside that, the entire land area of the country is claimed by another recognized state (the new transnational government) which would, according to the constitutive theory of statehood we mention later in the article, deny Somaliland any chance at statehood. You cannot formally reject that theory in the introduction or else you're denying a fair hearing. Beyond that, the entity of "Somaliland has been titled a state by Le Monde [2], this policy analysis site [3], in its official news outlet[4], the Somaliland Times [5], the Ethiopian Addis Tribune [6], these political analysis of the situation [7] [8] [9], the Somaliland Policy and Reconstruction Insitute [10], the UN [11], Reporters sans frontieres [12], this news service [13], and most glaringly, in its constitution[14]. But all that is irrelevant beyond demonstrating that the issue is controversial, and it is not something that should be asserted in the introductory section of the article.Adam Faanes 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Nutrality

The following paragraph seems to have a subtle but biased tone regarding the current situation in iraq:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of April 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but after reading it several times it still gives a certain 'feel' suggesting illegitimacy towards International presense in iraq. It's very minor issue i agree however i do believe that paragraph could be writen in a more neutral form while still demonstrating the point. I'm refering to wording such as U.S. occupiers, plus "terrorist" groups, and U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.). 82.28.25.177 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "occupier" is very neutral - the United States clearly meets the definition of an occupying power as established by international law. "Terrorist" is not at all a content-neutral term, so the quotation marks are necessary.Lagringa 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nation versus Country, and the State

There is a distinction made between "country" and "nation" where country has also been used to mean the body of people, its territory, and a single national government. Granted "nation" is a better description of a "country" to avoid the confusion of describing the less populated areas of a nation also called country. Country is still often used to describe a nation. State is correct when applied to a body of people with its territory under one government. The United States also makes distinctions for "state" to be one of its subdivisions under its Federal government where at the start of the United States each State was an independent entity. Each State of the United States does possess independent government capacities apart from the national government; and, the current United States took 218 years (with State being a Constitutional word of the supreme law of the land) and one civil war to look like it does in the year 2005.

Removed section

This section seems POV to me, and I have removed it:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of November 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus so-called "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, especially the U.K.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

I'd like to see some more citation and an NPOV re-write if this goes back into the article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks line an anon thought so as well above. Anyone have any thoughts on sources for the above assertions? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be left out entirely; we can find better examples that won't attract controversy needlessly in this article, if we need to. The qualifications we'd have to attach to "Iraq [is or is not] a failed state" would have to be huge if we were to make it NPOV and would kind of defeat the purpose I think. Adam Faanes 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have restored a (short) discussion of failed states while making no reference to Iraq. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Better, but it would also help if you could cite a source for the sentence "These cases are sometimes called failed states". Who calls them that? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

I do not buy the etymology proposed in the article:

"The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit."

The way I see it the the origin of state is The States, i.e. the feudal parliament representing the estates of the realm. (See also States-General.) The word estates is again derived from estate meaning land or land ownership. Estate has its orign on Latin aestas, aestatis, Latin for summer. (See Wiktionary.)

(The way summer came to mean land is most likely that Romans owned summer houses, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.)

Petri Krohn 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Astharoth1 rewrite

Frankly, I believe this page is on the whole disatrous. 1. I tried to strip the definition to the bear minimum. 2. For instance, sovereignty is important for the first succint definition, but not the Montevideo convention. 3. A "definite" territory is not necessary for a state. There are over a thousand borders disputes. (i.e. the even the United states has disputes over the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico). 5. A government is not necessary for the definition nor for the existence of a state. There is constant confusion between the government of the state. Finally, I believe that the user "cut and pasted" the definition of "State" from the Montevideo convention without analizing its theoretical implications and legalistic (normative) points of view. The said convention is marginal to the contemporary study of the state. Astharoth1 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(I moved the above comment to end of page in line with convention -- Petri Krohn 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the re-write has been done well and more accurately reflects the state. I would perhaps add a more modern 'globalized' network theory of the state to the theories section, however. Robdurbar 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would argue that this section largely ignores more recent crtical theories of the state in favour of older, realist views Robdurbar 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It still neeeds polishing and have an entire section of postmodern theories of the state.Astharoth1 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid any addition from me will probably have a natural geography bias, whilst this is probably more the realm of a political scientist Robdurbar 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Big edit

I've just made an edit that I couldn't summarise in the edit summary, so here is what I did:

Turned the ad hoc disambiguation link at the top into {{Otheruses}}. IMO saying in the dablink what the article is about is pointless - if the article doesn't say this itself in the first paragraph, there's something wrong with it.
Similarly, "For further information" turned into {{Further}}.
The "synonyms" section referred to other meanings of "state", which are homonyms, not synonyms, so I changed the heading accordingly.
Removed the flags from this section - what's the point in them? Country names aren't marked out with their flags anywhere else in this article, let alone the rest of Wikipedia (apart from a couple of templates).
In the "international level" section, turned "see also" into {{Seealso}}.
In same section, removed weird garbage characters.
Other miscellaneous style edits.

Hairy Dude 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of states

Perhaps a few examples of "entities which are states" and "entities which are not states" could be included: the borderline between Andorra and Moresnet, Vatican City State and Mount Athos etc. Were entities such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire states in the sense we would use now?

Questions - slightly tongue in cheek - several states have been declared bankrupt in the past. What legal (international or local) proceedures would have to be followed if it was decided to follow the normal course of action for a bankrupt organisation?

Rulers used to sell their territories to each other or the inhabitants thereof: could a similar process happen now, and what proceedures would have to be followed?

Jackiespeel 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous conception of Marxist socialism

Before corrections:

Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people.

I added the obvious link to Stateless communism; although it's only a stub at the moment, I intend to expand it (with YOUR help, I hope!). This is not really an error, though.

Errors:

that socialism preserves private property
- actually, beyond one's own small personal possessions (like your shoes), you can't own a huge tract of land or factory or business and hire laborers at a profit
that socialism preserves a democratic state
- actually, its a dictatorship in which the government suppresses all opposition
that all states are illegitimate
- I clarified that Marxists see the socialist state as the lone exception (albeit tempororay)
that socialism is a representative democracy
- certainly not true in USSR, China or other major Communist states - these are all one-party states
that stateless communism will be direct democracy.
- Never heard of this before: how can there be "democracy" with no "state"? I thought it was more of a benign anarchic paradise

Please discuss any or all of the above, rather than simply reverting.

Too much emphasis on Marxism

Why is the Marxist view on the state given so much room, especially compared to the pluralist one? Marxist theory is only held by a minority of scholars, and only a handful of states continue to espouse such theory. Meanwhile the democratic pluralist view has achieved almost complete hegemony in the two decades since 1990. The current emphasis towards a left-wing minority view is an example of bias.93.97.89.55 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page one

I've removed this sentence in a revert:

Note that a sovereignty shouldn't be confused with a monarchy.

The predicate that precedes it should be enough to rule such confusion out:

...a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority.

If i'm mistaken and the edit i reverted is is an advance, let's discover that by a discussion here. --Jerzy 04:31, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the need for the sentence you took out given that the article talks of "sovereignity" not "a sovereignty". --(talk to)BozMo 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

However I disagree that in casual language state means the same as country. In the United Kingdom everyone accepts that Wales and Scotland are countries (e.g. on football) but noone says they are states.--BozMo |talk 15:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland are more like principalities, little or no power to themself but make up a larger, more powerful whole when added to england.

Also you only disagree with state meaning country because you are used to the bastardised english of using state as the same meaning as county as in US English Cokehabit 09:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The who in the what now?

Early in the The domestic point of view section there is a line that read: Its students emphasize the relationship between the state and its people.

Maybe I'm just blind or not familiar with this usage of the English language (not a native speaker) but who are the students in question here? --Biekko 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recognition Requirement for a State

Since the Montevideo convention is accepted by some (declarative versus constitutive), in the introduction, shouldn't we recognize that although recognition by other states is important, it is not required under some theories?--BlueSunRed 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If a state is not recognised by other states then does it have (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.? After all it takes two to tango so, if a state is not recongised by at least one other state it does not have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The capacity to enter into relations is the capacity to be recognized; this is why people make constitutive statehood arguments for things like the Tamil Tigers and Abkhazia on the grounds of the Montevideo convention. It may take two to tango, but the treaty only requires that you can dance - not that you can find dance partners. Adam Faanes 23:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

surly to have the capacity to enter into relations with the other states the UDI state will have to have another state willing to enter into an agreement otherwise there is no capacity. Philip Baird Shearer 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention continues in Article III "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."[15] Besides which, if the "capacity to enter into relations" were tantamount to the real existence of relations, "capacity" would have lost any useful meaning in the phrase. Adam Faanes 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The fourth criteria has generally be re-interpreted as "independence" -- in other words, the state is not beholden or controlled by another state. Thus, for example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is unrecognized by every state except Turkey, partially because it is believed that it is more or less under the control of the Turkish military (and also, it is argued, because it was created because of an illegal act of aggression). The issue of recognition and its relationship with statehood is highly controversial. For further reading, I recommend Lauterpacht (1947) Recognition in International Law, Grant (200) Recognition of States, Dugard (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. For an interesting interpretation of this fourth clause see S v. Banda and Others 6 Feb 1989 'ILR 82' in which the supreme court of Bophuthatswana, a Bantustan "state" universally non-recognized argues, using the declaratory argument, that it is a sovereign state even though no nations will enter into relations with it. FunnyYetTasty 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a State

A state is created when three of more people join together for a common political purpose and these people create a "jurisdiction". The restarting of a jurisdiction would also create a state, as long as there is some mechanism to enforce collective agreements. The U.S Founding Fathers contemplated this act in Amendment I. by allowing the people to peaceably assemble and "petition" government to redress a grievance. (a petition at this time would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus protected in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2). This implies...that Amendment I and IX contemplated many efforts of self determination (or self government) by the people. This skill and desire has been lost for many years.

Jim 21:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I realise this is both an old comment and off topic from the article.. but this comment isn't right! that isn't what a state is at all, not according to law, governments, academics, anyone in fact. doing that would arguably makes you a self governing political community, but certainly not a state. a state needs both de jure and de facto statehood.. that would have neither (Mattimeus 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)).

Philosophers since Rousseau

"Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau pondered issues concerning the ideal and actual roles of the state." Shouldn't we add some theorists on the State since Rousseau? He's certainly not the last word! E.g. Max Weber, who formulated the modern definition of the State - an institution with a monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. And Franz Oppenheimer, author of "The State." And Albert Jay Nock, author of "Our Enemy the State." And Leopold Kohr, author of "The Breakdown of Nations." These are some of the 20th century classics about the State.

Weber, yes. The others, no. How about Rawls? Nozick? Even that guy who wrote about the market state -- cant' remember his name, Shield of Achilles was the book. Grace Note 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good! Rawls and Nozick certainly spoke to the purpose of State. Nozick also did some work in 'invisible hand processes' that may justify some States. Yes, lets put them in. I'm a little surprised about your rejection of Oppenheimer. What about Murray Rothbard? ("Man, Economy, and State" etc.) Sample an essay of Rothbard's: The Anatomy of the State. That's my favorite "statism in one lesson" essay.

It's a question of stature. Rawls and Nozick are thinkers widely recognised and appreciated, whose names should be instantly recognisable to the reader in the same way as Rousseau's. We are not looking for a list of anyone who has ever had anything to say about the state, however interesting you or I might find what they had to say. Grace Note 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nutrality

The following paragraph seems to have a subtle but biased tone regarding the current situation in iraq:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of April 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

Perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but after reading it several times it still gives a certain 'feel' suggesting illegitimacy towards International presense in iraq. It's very minor issue i agree however i do believe that paragraph could be writen in a more neutral form while still demonstrating the point. I'm refering to wording such as U.S. occupiers, plus "terrorist" groups, and U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, the U.K., etc.). 82.28.25.177 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "occupier" is very neutral - the United States clearly meets the definition of an occupying power as established by international law. "Terrorist" is not at all a content-neutral term, so the quotation marks are necessary.Lagringa 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

This section seems POV to me, and I have removed it:

For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, a country such as Iraq (as of November 2005) would not be seen as truly having a state since the ability to use violence was shared between the U.S. occupiers and a variety of independent or insurgent militias (plus so-called "terrorist" groups), while order and security were not maintained. The official Iraqi government had very limited military or police power of its own. The official Iraqi government also lacked sovereignty because of the role of U.S. domination. In fact, it might be said that while the Iraqis have a government, it is the U.S. military occupiers (and their allies, especially the U.K.) that constitute the state. Even that state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force in Iraq and so represents a "failed state".

I'd like to see some more citation and an NPOV re-write if this goes back into the article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks line an anon thought so as well above. Anyone have any thoughts on sources for the above assertions? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be left out entirely; we can find better examples that won't attract controversy needlessly in this article, if we need to. The qualifications we'd have to attach to "Iraq [is or is not] a failed state" would have to be huge if we were to make it NPOV and would kind of defeat the purpose I think. Adam Faanes 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have restored a (short) discussion of failed states while making no reference to Iraq. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Better, but it would also help if you could cite a source for the sentence "These cases are sometimes called failed states". Who calls them that? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

I do not buy the etymology proposed in the article:

"The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit."

The way I see it the the origin of state is The States, i.e. the feudal parliament representing the estates of the realm. (See also States-General.) The word estates is again derived from estate meaning land or land ownership. Estate has its orign on Latin aestas, aestatis, Latin for summer. (See Wiktionary.)

(The way summer came to mean land is most likely that Romans owned summer houses, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.) Petri Krohn 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary claims estate to be derived form the latin status and st{amac}-re (to stand) which gave rise to the whole staat, etat, estate, state thing.

--Dawnfrenzy 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The historian Quentin Skinner, in his article "The State," in the book "Political Innovation and Conceptual Change," has traced it to the Latin status (condition, situation), both in the phrase status rei publicae ("the condition of the republic") and in the idea of the "state of the king" (the "statu hominum" or status of the king). Xmarquez 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The orign may be Latin: statùs, but the explanation given above is totally wrong. State is a cognate of French: État and German: Stände, both refer to the Estates of the realm. The German article de:Ständeordnung claims that Stände originates from Latin: statùs. -- Petri Krohn 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Petri Krohn is referring to the explanation in Skinner or to the explanation in the page or earlier in this discussion. Are you saying that French: État is unrelated to Latin: statùs or that it is not related to the tradition of political thought that draws on the Latin terminology of the "status" of the king or of the realm (see Skinner reference above)? I don't see why in a section on the etymology of the word "state" the Latin origins would not be mentioned, especially as these are important in the Roman law tradition that Skinner identifies. At any rate the notion that the word "state" derives from the "regal chair" needs a reference Xmarquez 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a conflict in the sources; Wiktionary:estate states that estate is derived from Latin: aestas for summer. Other sources state that estate - etat - state - staat - stande is derived from Latin: statùs. Can both of these be right?
I do not believe that English: Setate or French: État refer to the status of the king (or his seat). They refer to The States, an assembly of the Estates of the realm. The state is thus not the King but the People. -- Petri Krohn 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, I'm not sure why state could not refer both to the king and to the people. The modern term "state" amalgamates both king (L'etat c'est moi) and people (the estates of the realm), and the "estates" of the realm are nothing other than the different legal "statuses" recognized in feudal law (clerical, noble, common). I do not think the Latin "aestas" has anything to do with the etymology of "state" or even "estate," however: see the various etymologies here, all of which derive estate from middle English/Old French estat, or condition, ultimately from the latin status. See especially the citation from the Online Dictionary of Etymology, by Douglas Harper. We could rewrite the section to reflect the dispute, though: some claim it's derived from X, others from Y. Xmarquez 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Astharoth1 rewrite

Frankly, I believe this page is on the whole disatrous. 1. I tried to strip the definition to the bear minimum. 2. For instance, sovereignty is important for the first succint definition, but not the Montevideo convention. 3. A "definite" territory is not necessary for a state. There are over a thousand borders disputes. (i.e. the even the United states has disputes over the continental shelf in the gulf of Mexico). 5. A government is not necessary for the definition nor for the existence of a state. There is constant confusion between the government of the state. Finally, I believe that the user "cut and pasted" the definition of "State" from the Montevideo convention without analizing its theoretical implications and legalistic (normative) points of view. The said convention is marginal to the contemporary study of the state. Astharoth1 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(I moved the above comment to end of page in line with convention -- Petri Krohn 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the re-write has been done well and more accurately reflects the state. I would perhaps add a more modern 'globalized' network theory of the state to the theories section, however. Robdurbar 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would argue that this section largely ignores more recent crtical theories of the state in favour of older, realist views Robdurbar 17:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It still neeeds polishing and have an entire section of postmodern theories of the state.Astharoth1 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid any addition from me will probably have a natural geography bias, whilst this is probably more the realm of a political scientist Robdurbar 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Big edit

I've just made an edit that I couldn't summarise in the edit summary, so here is what I did:

Turned the ad hoc disambiguation link at the top into {{Otheruses}}. IMO saying in the dablink what the article is about is pointless - if the article doesn't say this itself in the first paragraph, there's something wrong with it.
Similarly, "For further information" turned into {{Further}}.
The "synonyms" section referred to other meanings of "state", which are homonyms, not synonyms, so I changed the heading accordingly.
Removed the flags from this section - what's the point in them? Country names aren't marked out with their flags anywhere else in this article, let alone the rest of Wikipedia (apart from a couple of templates).
In the "international level" section, turned "see also" into {{Seealso}}.
In same section, removed weird garbage characters.
Other miscellaneous style edits.

Hairy Dude 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of states

Perhaps a few examples of "entities which are states" and "entities which are not states" could be included: the borderline between Andorra and Moresnet, Vatican City State and Mount Athos etc. Were entities such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire states in the sense we would use now?

Questions - slightly tongue in cheek - several states have been declared bankrupt in the past. What legal (international or local) proceedures would have to be followed if it was decided to follow the normal course of action for a bankrupt organisation?

Rulers used to sell their territories to each other or the inhabitants thereof: could a similar process happen now, and what proceedures would have to be followed?

Jackiespeel 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous conception of Marxist socialism

Before corrections:

Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people.

I added the obvious link to Stateless communism; although it's only a stub at the moment, I intend to expand it (with YOUR help, I hope!). This is not really an error, though.

Errors:

that socialism preserves private property
- actually, beyond one's own small personal possessions (like your shoes), you can't own a huge tract of land or factory or business and hire laborers at a profit
  - More specifically, private property in Marxist socialism refers to elements involved in production e.g. the means of production, your car is not "private property" in this sense.
that socialism preserves a democratic state
- actually, its a dictatorship in which the government suppresses all opposition
  - ACTUALLY, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant as a transitory element after the seizure of state power by the working class. In Marxist socialist theory, dictatorship does not have the same connotations as a fascist dictatorship and is more in line with the ancient Roman notion. The goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to seize state power and democratize decisions more so than in current capitalist democracies which aren't legitimate democracies.
that all states are illegitimate
- I clarified that Marxists see the socialist state as the lone exception (albeit tempororay)
that socialism is a representative democracy
- certainly not true in USSR, China or other major Communist states - these are all one-party states

---the status of these countries as "socialist" or "communist" is debatable. Even if they are accepted as such they are specifically Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, etc. Socialism doesn't necessarily entail any such theoretical association.

that stateless communism will be direct democracy.
- Never heard of this before: how can there be "democracy" with no "state"? I thought it was more of a benign anarchic paradise

---democracy does not require a proper state as it is simply decision by consensus.

Please discuss any or all of the above, rather than simply reverting.

And please do not make major changes and an unannounced archive at the same time, with no comments. You've been around long enough to know better. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old article with a more concise and tightly focused rewrite based on text long languishing in my user sandbox User:172/State. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Archiving and page blanking

It looks to me like your "archiving" is an attempt to

cut off discussion
make it difficult for contributors besides you to determine whether your massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions.
"own the talk page"

Any of these 3 reasons would be grounds to postpone an archive. Please wait until and unless there is consensus before doing an archive. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing Ed Poor in an edit summary is not a reason of any kind for reverting. It's not even a bad reason, it's just a person's name. Please refrain from any further reverts until there is a consensus for archiving.

Recovery from edit conflict

172 wrote this - sorry I had to move it because he didn't use the "+" function and wasn't editing a section:

Ed Poor, the dispute might as well be personal. You are attacking my motives, and you don't even have a specific objection to anything in the content of my rewrite. Stop acting to prevent the improvment in the quality of articles. 172 | Talk 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had to cut and paste this here. I will leave the page for a few minutes while you put it where it really should go, if I have erred. --Uncle Ed 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I started this rewrite months ago in User:172/State. I'd show you the complement from another user that I received on my talk page. But for some reason I can't seem to access my talk page, or any user talk page, at the moment. By the way, tell me why I should not report you, asking that you be blocked for violating the 3RR and incivility on this page? 172 | Talk 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I should rather ask you that question. Your accusation that I am "attacking your motives" seems incivil to me. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor, frankly I think what you are doing has an efect that borders on vandalism. And I'm not talking about your motives; I'm talking about the consequences of your actions. My rewrite is a dramatic improvment. You have no specific objection to any of the content. Yet, you keep reverting back to the terribly written old version based on nothing more than ad hominems. And, yes, you are attacking my motives and being uncivil; you already accused me of attempting to "cut off discussion," "make it difficult for contributors... to determine whether [my] massive rewrite has any bearing on previous discussions" and "own the talk page." 172 | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration and page ownership

I agree with the literal (though perhaps unintended?) meaning of 172's edit summary:

Restoring this atrociously written article based on ad hominem innuendo borders on vandalism.

172, your actions border on vandalism. If you revert the article to your preferred version more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, that action will violate the 3RR rule. I request that you refrain from doing this.

I do not see how asking you to refrain from violating rules you know well, could possibly constitute a personal attack. We all have to follow the rules. Why are you taking this personally? I have nothing against you and am in fact eager to collobarate.

By the way, thank you for not blanking this page again. It will help all of us to work together if we can see the discussion - especially the last several hundred words.

None of us can judge whether our own work is well written or atrociously written. We must rely on the judgment of our peers. That is why article changes are usually made slowly, bit by bit. Or radical changes are made after discussion and consensus. Or at least are explained afterwards.

Continually reverting to one's own preferred version or refusing to discuss changes goes against the wiki spirit. Please catch the spirit!

I wrote the above before reading your last remark; there was another edit conflict, I'm not trying to "talk past you". Give me a moment to respond, please. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you can't seem to follow an ongoing discussion? Just about every talk page post I see you make includes a new heading. That makes it especially frustrating to deal with you. And by the way, since you were the first to revert, you'd be the first to violate the 3RR (which you already violated on the talk page by undoing the long-overdue archive of the talk page). And by the way, do you have any specific objection to my write? Ordinarily, users get complemented for rewriting and vastly improving articles. Yet, you seem to have an axe to grind against me. 172 | Talk 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I will try to be better at following the ongoing discussion. Now that we've agreed not to archive the talk page, I can refer to previous sections of the discussion.

Also, as much as possible, I will reply in 'thread mode' rather than starting new headings. You made the same suggestion at talk:Totalitarianism, I recall, and it is a good one!

I like good rewrites, and as I said above I reverted "without prejudice". Your rewrite was just too much, too fast. And combined with initial blanking of the talk page, it seemed to cut off discussion and prevent analysis and reflection.

I have no axe to grind with you, but I find your sudden large rewrites hard to follow. If instead of reverting all non-172 edits to your preferred version, you would discuss a few of them, I would not want to undo your reverts.

To address your motives (now that you have brought them up, since before now I have not said anything about them) ... What we perhpas have in common is a desire to improve the articles. Am I write in assuming you have this motive? And are you okay with my discussing with you the topic of your motives - or would you prefer to stick to the subject of the articles themselves?

I have nothing against you, and if you will tell me how you wish to proceed I will do the best I can to accommodate you. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. There's nothing of substance in your comment above with respect to the substance of the article. If you actually have specific concerns about article content, I will address them. And by the way, I did not agree to stop archiving the talk page. You undid the archive by force by being willing to break the 3RR here. 172 | Talk 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ordering NPOV

Why is Marx mentioned first and not last in these cases:

The state is therefore considered the most central concept in the study of politics, and its definition is the subject of intense scholarly debate. Political sociologists in the tradition of both Karl Marx and Max Weber usually favor a broad definition that draws attention to the role of coercive apparatus.

6 Contemporary theories of the state
- 6.1 Marxism
- 6.2 Pluralism
- 6.3 Institutionalism

It seems to me that this article gives the sort of prominence to Marx that one would expect to see in an article of this type written 20 years ago in a left wing magazine. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your post puzzles me. (Did you read the content of the section?) You suggest it is somehow better to be mentioned first instead of last. Actually, it's the other way around. In literature reviews in academic works, the auhtor works his/her way down to the more relevant, recent work from the older perspectives. The same is done here. The section on contemporary Marxian work on the state is first because the leading Marxist theorists of the state (Miliband, Poulantzas, and Louis Althusser) reached their peak of influence in Western political sociology in the 1960s and 1970s. The work of Robert Dahl, the leading theorist associated with pluralism, is somewhat more current; thus, it makes sense to describe pluralism after describing Marxism. The section on the "new institutionalism," strongly associated with the work of Theda Skocpol, must be placed after both the sections on Marxism and pluralism because "new institutionalist" work on the state is (a) more recent and, moreover (b) a critical response to both Marxism and pluralism. In this sense, it makes little sense to describe the critical response to Marxian and pluralist thinking on the state before we have described the Marxian and pluralist understanding of the state. Again, your post is quite puzzling, because the structure of the section implicitly suggests that Marxian thought on the state has passed its heyday-- far from giving it more prominence. 172 | Talk 21:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Government or The State

A distinction needs to be made between "government" and "The State". The former is simply the question "Who (a person) may coerce whom to do x?" The latter is the invention of Machiavelli, and is a machine, not a person. The former has been always with us; the latter starts in the 17th Century, and becomes independent of its operator with the French Revolution. July 2006 - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.71.118.255 (talk • contribs) .

Not just that - there's also the distinction between country (something that can enter international agreements) and state (something that can sovereingly make and enforce laws, even if it has delegated some sovereignty to a larger entity). Zocky | picture popups 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophies of the state"

I removed a section copied from the old version of the article restored by FETuriousness entitled "Philosophies of the state." I did so with strong reservations, given that the content is generally well-written, and serves to supplement the underdeveloped section of the article on "the state and modern political thought."

The "philosophies of the state" section, I think, cannot be salvaged. In both structure and content the section is based on the thesis of the original author, whoever he/she was, that there are specifically "four theories about the origin (and indirectly the justification) of the state." Yet categorizing the history of political thought is tremendously difficult and contested. The original author's thesis "four theories can accommodate the full spectrum of political views" (contractarianism, liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism) on the state is reasonable, but too constraining.

Since classical antiquity, different political theorists have been drawing up different taxonomies for understanding different types of states and different ways of understanding the state. The article should focus itself on reporting different the different theories of the state, without becoming, like the "philosophies" section restored by FETuriousness, a work of state theory itself. In this sense, the article is best organized (a) chronologically, or (b) by the political and cultural context, rather than according to taxonomies developed by Wikipedia editors. 172 | Talk 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed section is here: /Philosphies of the state. There does seem to be some OR-ish concern there. But I think some rewording might be able to address it, shy of broad deletion. For example, we need not claim that the four theories presented are exhaustive, but just that they are notable. I think probably something shorter with links to corresponding articles would suffice though. LotLE×talk 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to reword, that'd be great. The section isn't badly written and the OR isn't unreasonable, as far as I can tell. I was trying to do so myslef, but I was having trouble. 172 | Talk 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

State Failure, Weak and Strong States, Institutionalization

I'd like to encourage someone to take on these terms, given all the discussion these days about the risks that state failure or weak states present to the rest of the world. Thanks, anyone who has time to do this.--Mack2 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be may area of expertise. I'll get around to expanding the coverage, hopefully. 172 | Talk 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered there's a decent stub of an article on Failed state, but it addresses only the issue of control over the use of force (a definitional criterion of a state) and not the causes and consequences, nor the broader issue of state institutionalization and legitimation (ability to rule without the use of force), performance, and so on.--Mack2 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Secession

Part of a state may secede (e.g. East Timor, Montenegro), forming a new state. This presents an inacurate historical account why East Timor is not a part of Indonesia. East Timor did not secede, but rather succeeded (with some help from non-Timorese) in getting Indonesia to end their illegal occupation. Besides Indonesia itself, the only other state to recognize Indonesia's claim to the territory and authority over the people that lived there was Australia. So besides people's own observations, there also was no legal status of East Timor being a part of Indonesia and therefore no secession. Rather it fits with the first line (However, a state or area which is only "occupied" by another state does not lose its statehood.) So I am moving East Timor to this line. LobotzRobtz 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition and usage

"State" is perhaps the worst word in the English language because it can refer to either a country (the independent state of wherever) or a government (power is excercised through the state), and the difference between these two things is one of the biggest issues in political philosophy and science. VolatileChemical 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is why I changed the first sentence to read: "A state is a society with effective dominion over a geographic territory, and usually including the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules..." If one examines historical usage, one finds that while the term usually includes the instruments of government, it often does not, referring only to the society + territory, which may or may not have a government, or in the state of having formed the society but not yet the government. I submit my definition as more precise and historically accurate. We see this distinction in the U.S. Constitution, which refers to states for which a "republican form of government" is guaranteed. That clearly indicates that the "state" can be something without a government (although it may always need some kind of government). --Jon Roland 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why do I keep getting blocked? someone is editing under "sweet nikki" and it rikasheys onto my computer, all i have to say is, SWEET NIKKI, GET OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!

hoping sweetnikki will listen, Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.5 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

international law and statehood

I have changed the paragraph relating to statehood and international law, because it confuses international law and municipal law. For national courts, like US courts the recognition of state X by the US government does have an impact on the proceedings.

In an international court, statehood is defined by the 'Montevideo Convention on on the Rights and Duties of States 1933'. According to the convention is a territorial administration is a state if it has (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government in control of the territory, (4) capacity to enter into relations with other states (international relations can exist without recognition like in the case of Israel and Arab states). Opinion 1 of the Badinter Commission on the question of the status of Croatia (and others) declared 'the existence or disappearance of the State is a question of fact; ... the effects of recognition of other States are purely declaratory'. The only exception to the de facto statehood is when a state is seized by illegal means e.g. the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey. In this case the previous government remains the state although they have lost de facto control. This, however, does not depend on the recognition of states but on the legality of the acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.99.211 (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

de jure and de facto statehood

I reverted to a previous version because states are often recognized de jure as such even if the governments that represent them have attained power by means deemed illegal within the country; otherwise many dictators would never be recognized as proper representatives of their states, when in fact they are. Moreover, the point of the section was to point to states (such as Somalia) that are represented by governments which do not actually control their territories, but are still understood to be the proper representatives of a territory Xmarquez 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A new definition of State

Hello, I'm a fresh one in Wikipedia, but I wanna make a question: Why there isn't a best definiton of National State & Federated State?It's only a sugestion.TKS . {Bryard (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}

Government and state

I guess there is some overlap between the two? How can this be resolved? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to my question. Every IR/Comparative Politics course I've taken has a definition of The State that I haven't seen in any of the Wikipedia/Wikiversity/Wikibooks pages on the topics. I think that including that definition would go a long way to clarifying your question. Josterhage (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Whaites' sentence

can someone elaborate on the last part of this sentence:

Whaites has argued that in developing countries there are dangers inherent in promoting strong civil society where states are weak, risks that should be considered and mitigated by those funding civil society or advocating its role as an alternative source of service provision

thanks 216.80.119.92 (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Proper definition of a "State" is a suburb

Article 1. A state is a large suburb consisting of cities and counties.

Article 2. Due to disambiguousity, a large suburb is commonly refered to as a state.

Article 3. In England a state is an oversized suburb which is not to be confused with a english province which is an accumilation of states.

Article 4. A country is a country, which is not a state, or province, but the combined entity thereof.

Article 5. For example: The United States of America is a Province and/or country of States and/or Provinces.

68.7.157.6 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (March 2009)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose rename of "State" to "Sovereign state"

I surprised this hasn't been proposed before. The term "state" is inherently ambiguous as it can be ascribed to both California and the United States. I propose to rename this article "Sovereign state". Information which doesn't apply to sovereign states can be moved to State (administrative division). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You will find a lot of people still referring to "the sovereign state of Texas", the "sovereign state of Virginia", etc. Try Googling this with any of the 50 states (including California). I really see no reason for the move. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is rather archaic usage IMHO. — Blue-Haired Lawyer

I trust you are not planning to plead in American constitutional law. The sovereignity of the states is limited by the Constitution, but not abolished. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite true; it does not disambiguate. The component states of the United States (I can't speak for Australia) are imperia in imperio. The sole effect of this would be to make linking harder; the fix is to add a dab header to State (administrative division). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In proposing to use "Sovereign state" I am only following current Wikipedia practice. We currently have a list of sovereign states, which does not (for good reason) list either California or Texas. "State" is an ambiguous term, it should be a disambiguation page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are perfectly good reasons for compiling a list which does not include Texas or New South Wales, and which would not have included the Ukraine before 1991; it avoids double-counting. But this article does not follow the Montevideo Convention, which is the basis for the list, and states that it is not accepted in international law. (Presumably the Convention would have included the Ukraine; it was a founding member state of the United Nations.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) Responses in a list:

1. The Montevideo Convention is not the sole basis of the list of sovereign states. It lists de jure states (Somalia) and de facto ones (Somaliland). It does allow for duplicates lists two Chinas and two Cypruses etc...

2. Texas is not sovereign. Texas does not have a monopoly on the use of force within its borders, an independent foreign policy, an army under its own sole command, the ability to enter into treaties, a citizenship law (in the normal sense), that it is not a member of any international organisations and does not any diplomatic relations (trade missions don't count!) with any other states.

3. There are federal states and then there are sovereign independent states. They are fundamentally different things. They should have different articles.

4. The English word "state" is ambiguous. It is by no means obvious that an article called "state" will talk about. I very much doubt that you can find a primary usage. We already have two articles: State and State (administrative division), it's just a matter of being more precise with out terminology. If "sovereign state" isn't precise enough, I'm open to suggestions.

5. Wikipedia should have an article describing what a sovereign independent state is. I've seen too many article using the following formulation of pipe-links (sovereign independent state). I'd state witting one but as far as I can see 97% of the contents of this article relate to the article I'd like to write about.

6. Using "State" for an article on "sovereign independent states" means that it has to talk about both sovereign independent states and federal states when ideally it shouldn't have to. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the addition of the dab header has made this move request moot. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's better than nothing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer

I just hope you were not planning on creating "the article I'd like to write about" so that it can be used as evidence in a trial you are working on.199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

huh?? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that instead of patently removing Texas from this article that a paragraph be included about states which retain some of their sovereign rights, such as the states of the United States.199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas wouldn't really be a sovereign independent state would it? I think the confusion relates to a international law / municipal law paradigm. Modern democracies share their internal sovereignty between different organs, but it doesn't dilute their external sovereignty in international law. In unitary states the division is horizontal between different branches of government, while in federations the division is also vertical, between different levels of government. In other words Texas is sovereign in municipal law but not public international law. And consequently is not a traditional subject of international law

I seem to recall California entering into an international agreement recently. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this article as fundamentally about a topic of public international law. It might be an idea to put all of this imperia in imperio stuff in an article about federal states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to throw a monkey wrench into the works, I would like to point out that today no nation retains complete sovereignty, as all nations are subject to some international law. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Monkey wrench well thrown! But even the original scholars of international law, a few centuries ago, always saw sovereignty limited by international law itself (and natural law). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It has the force of law, though, since 2002 (has it been that long, already?). Previously it only applied to states that voluntarily entered into international agreements. Now there are certain situations in which you have no choice. Natural law is another matter, subject to individual interpretation. Unless you are talking about laws of science, like gravity. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And "state" can mean "condition" and be a verb. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I strongly dispute this move; if I didn't think State was better as a disambiguation page, I'd propose a move back. No consensus, no improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How in the world was this a consensus to move? Anthony Appleyard and Blue-Haired Lawyer supported the move, Pmanderson and the anon opposed it. Outrageous. john k (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Major link repair project

Now that this page has been moved, as per the above discussion, there are approximately 3,000 other Wikipedia articles that link to State, which previously directed readers to this article, but now directs them to the disambiguation page. All of these links need to be fixed. However, it is not so simple as having a bot change every link from [[State]] to [[Sovereign state|State]], because some of these links are wrong—as might be expected, given the ambiguity in the term "State," some editors linked to that page when a different meaning was more appropriate. So all of these links need to be reviewed manually and corrected, and no doubt all of those who supported the page renaming will be happy to pitch in and contribute to this effort. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalize, please

I've added the Globalize template to the history section. The section as it currently exists is well-done but extremely Eurocentric. It would be useful to include material on the development of the state in other parts of the world (China, for example). Unfortunately I'm not qualified to do that. Jd4v15 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

delete this page?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus at this time. More discussion is probably required. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign state → State (politics) — Sovereign state → State (politics) - The only reason I can see for the existence of this article is to accommodate some Americans who are unsure of how to distinguish between states like New Jersy and states like Germany. I suggest that material in this article relateing to the concept of "state" be merged withthe article on "state," and material on the concept of "sovereignty" be merged with that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As the European who actually proposed this title for this article, I strongly oppose. An necessary part of what an encyclopedia is, is pointing out the obvious (ie the difference between New Jersy and Germany). Whatever the end result of the discussions over at Talk:State, we need to have an article on the sovereign states. It is a core topic of modern public international law. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, in your own words, say what you think the difference between New Jersey and Germany is; it would help if we all understood the same thing by it. (For one thing, the United States government does not claim, and does not possess, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; it possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of -American- force abroad.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well please tell me what a "non-sovereign" state is? You seem to be making a distinction no one lese makes - I don't know of any political anthropologist or political scientist who makes this distinction. Do you actually have a reliable significant source? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article begins with a definition of Weber's. Weber is defining "a state," NOT "a sovereign state." This smacks of original research. If we do not delete the page, we should at least change its name so the title follows the scholarship contained within: State (politics). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Weber isn't talking about Ohio! The use of the adjective "sovereign" is just to avoid ambiguity. Wikipedia already has an article called List of sovereign states to avoid the ambiguity that could be created by a "List of states" page. This page is so titled to avoid similar ambiguity. When we talk about "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area", it's obviously a sovereign state and not a non-sovereign state. A search on "sovereign state" on google book search produce 7,220 results, it's not just something I made up. The Republic of Ireland article contained a reference to "sovereign state" long before I ever changed it to "sovereign state". And our article on the European Union also refered to it as having X number of "sovereign states" as members. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are violating NOR. Ohio is a soveriegn state - it just limits its sovereignty. But according to the modern state system established by the treaties of westphalia, all states limit their soveriegnty. In no modern state is sovereignty absolute and unlimited. You are creating your own distinction, but it is not backed up by scholarship. please do not refer me to some other Wikipedia article, pleae provide a reliable significant source to support your view. And let Weber speak for himself, he knew all about the US when he wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As this article points there are states in the international sense and states in the constitutional sense. This article attempts to deal with the state in the international sense, although there is an obvious place for an article on the state in the constitutional sense as well. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to make "sovereign" draw the distinction between a state which conducts foreign relations and a state which doesn't. English won't do that, even setting aside the American case: protectorates retain sovereignity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kantorowicz is a significant view (although only one among many) but he is still using the word "state" - it sounds more and more like "sovereign state" is functioning as your personal neologism. This is a violation of NPOV. Cohen and Service use the word "state." Weber uses the word "state." Of course the article on the state should include different typologies of states. The fact remains, this article should be called State (politics) and not "sovereign state." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Or State (international relations) or State (international law). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While a lot of this gets into political science distinctions that I don't have expertise on, it seems to me that "sovereignty" and "statehood" are clearly distinct (although related) terms, and that it only creates problems to conflate the two, as this article does. Furthermore, even if there is such a thing as a "non-sovereign state," we ought to have an article which deals with statehood in general, and doesn't limit itself to "sovereign states." Given that state is a disambiguation page, this article seems to be the article to do that. We might consider the possibility of separate articles on "states" broadly defined (i.e., including both Michigan and France) and on "states" in international law (i.e., including France, but not Michigan), although I think it might be better to discuss the latter as a section of the broader article. Sovereignty ought to be discussed at sovereignty. john k (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An explanation of US state vs. the other kind

Back in the day, back in the 18th century when the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were written, the states that constitute the United States were states just as Germany and France are states. Since the Treaty of Paris resulted in the British relinquishing control over the thirteen rebel colonies, they were independent and operating their own governments just as a state (classical definition) would. Except in exchange for mutual benefit, states would give up a portion of their sovereignty. As time went on, more and more of their sovereignty was surrendered; this gave way to the states' rights movement of the antebellum period. Ultimately, the American Civil War established that states had no right to secede from the union. At this point, the states had given up so much sovereignty that they barely resembled the actual definition of a state; they were more like semi-autonomous subdivisions of a single state (the United States). Yet the term "state" lives on. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputable on many grounds; beginning with the letter by which Virginia declared that she ratified "in toto and forever" (search down), and could only accept such ratifications as valid from other states. But American political theory has little to do with this question; this would be the wrong title for this article if the United States had indeed abolished the sovereignty of the states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The sovereignty indeed exists, but in reality, it's practically non-existent. If the federal government truly recognized state sovereignty, the southern states would have been able to secede without the federal government condemning it as treachery. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Sovereignty can exist while being permanently limited, and does. But the metaphysics of sedition is off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that "ability to secede" does not constitute sovereignty in any reasonable way. It doesn't even comport very well with what you want to talk about which is "independent countries," or whatever - the member republics of the USSR and Yugoslavia, for instance did have the explicit right to secede. john k (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an extremely important component of actual, instead of theoretical, sovereignty, which when push comes to shove is pretty useless without it, as the Confederates discovered - to call their position "sedition" is highly POV. This is a very topical issue in the EU. I don't know what the paperwork said in Yugoslavia & the USSR, but any attempts to split off made before the 1989 crisis would certainly have been regarded as big-time "sedition", and were. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Any analysis of sovereignty in these terms is fatally flawed. The "actual sovereignty" of the late Soviet Socialist Republics was enshrined in the Soviet Constitution of 1936; they not only had the constitutional power to secede (and thirteen of them eventually exercised it), but were required to have a boundary with a foreign state so that they could secede without becoming enclaves in the Soviet Union.

I regret to see that two Wikipedia editors have been listening to the fantasies of the neo-Confederates. The sovereignty of the component states of the United States in clear; it includes the legitimate use of force, on their own authority. (Whether it consists of this is another metaphysical point, best left to the balance of sources in the article.) A large part of the constitutional law of the United States consists of deciding the limits on the sovereignty of the States, and, equally, the limits on the sovereignty of the Federal Government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to say I have spent no time at all "listening to the fantasies of the neo-Confederates"! But the ability of US states to secede was not settled by legal procedures, but by force of arms, as would have been the case in Yugoslavia & the USSR pre-1989. Perhaps you have been listening to the fantasies of political scientists and international lawyers? Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From one point of view, all questions of the rights of states are settled by the force of arms, actual or potential. From that point of view, "sovereignty" is probably a meaningless noise; if it has any meaning, it is a de facto question, which cannot depend on cases which have not occurred; the question of whether Ohio is sovereign cannot depend on what would happen if Ohio passed an ordinance of secession - the case is so unlikely (as the break-up of the Soviet Union appeared unlikely) that we cannot say what would happen if it came up; nobody in 1988 expected to see Lithuania, much less Tajikistan, independent.

Insofar as this is a question of law, it was settled by the Virginia ratifying convention:

James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

My dear Sir N. York Sunday Evening [July 20, 1788]

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand(1) & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness. Js. Madison

[P.S.] This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

Enough. This remains off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey (delete this page?)

Support. The discussion above shows several editors, who should be counted as supports, objecting to calling this Sovereign state, and one editor defending that name. State (politics) appears to be the most widely accepted suggestion, although I will support others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Because the term country is dependent on a persons view, it is a rather weak term when it comes to dealing with lists of countries etc which results in disputes about what should and should not be included. For that reason "sovereign state" is a term that is often used on list articles to detail what is and is not included (Sovereign states but NOT territories which may be considered countries or only countries that are sovereign states for example).

A simple case would be the United Kingdom, which is a country. The United Kingdom is made up of four countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now the only way to clearly explain the differences between the UK and those other countries in articles is to use the term sovereign state. So the intro on the UK currently says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state. "

What political scientist identifies Scotland or Wales as "states?" Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We have List of sovereign states which is currently the main list of "countries" on the English wikipedia. It seems wrong to rename an article explaining what a sovereign state is. Im not sure about some of the content on this article, its been expanded alot since its creation, but there is clear justification for an article on "Sovereign states". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per BritishWatcher. The political science article certainly has its place, but for such a basic concept a straightforward main article is needed. If the political scientists contend that there is in fact no such thing as a "sovereign state", then this should be explained in a section. Country used to have a lot of "state" stuff in it, which has now been cleared out. If it is also replaced here, it will pop up somewhere else. Rightly or wrongly, most of the world is under the impression that it lives in a set of sovereign states, and the subject of whatever it is that UN members are should be addressed from a contemporary international perspective, as well as from the historical and internal perspective of the other article. None of the articles in this area seem much good - State (administrative division), and Federalism for example, the latter seeming largely redundant to the better Federation. Sovereignty is wholly unreferenced, and seems iffy to me on a quick look. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The political science article certainly only has its place? The content related to the subject must be rooted in the scholarship on the subject. That is fundamental policy on Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia. Would anyone go to the entry on heart, lung, or brain and dismissively say, "Well, medical literature has its place; but alchemists and mystics have different definitions?" Entries on the state need to be rooted in scholarship on political science, political theory, and other social sciences no less than the article on lung, e.g., needs be rooted in scholarship on biology. 172 | Talk 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

- Did either of you read the pre-existing discussion? There is such a thing as a "sovereign state" - and this article is not about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, one editor at least seems to find the whole concept "dubious" [16]. There are several comments on this and associated talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Im glad you accept there is such a thing as a sovereign state, i dont understand why you are suggesting this article be renamed or as the discussion started out for it to be deleted. Sovereign state is used to refer to sovereign countries, now ofcourse it can be said that a state in the USA may be called a "sovereign state" that should be pointed out in the article, but the main use is describing countries, try google. Oh and i did read the above debate, with a few exceptions i thought it was a complete joke. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the suggestion that it be deleted was based on it having the wrong name (since the last unfortunate move, a few sections up). The difference between New Jersey and Germany (to quote the example above) does not consist of one being sovereign and the other not; the difference between the United Kingdom and Wales is not limited to one being sovereign and the other not. After discussion, it seems better to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well its clear everyone is slightly confused about what exactly the proposal here is. Im not saying all the text in this article is correct or on the right subject, ive not read it all. All im saying is there is such a thing as a sovereign state and it deserves its own article which is why i strongly opposed the move.

The main difference between Wales and the United Kingdom IS the fact that one is a sovereign state and one isnt whilst both are countries. Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, the UK is sovereign. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely the main difference between Wales and the United Kingdom is that Wales isn't a state at all. john k (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it isnt called a state, but it would depend on your definition of "state" if it could be classed as one or not. A quick look up of "state" shows Wales fits in with one or more of the descriptions but its certainly not a Sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In what sense is it a state? All of its authority derives from Westminster - it is no more a state than Eure. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposal? There is some confusion here. The editor who started this debate (but who did not add the actual move proposal) and others have proposed at Talk:State that the State (politics) article should be based on this version, which is partly the same text as the one here, but has a significantly different emphasis, and sections added and removed. Further major additions are proposed on the talk page. This is what my comments above about a "political science article" (that one) referred to, and SL Rubinsteins at the start here on "the State article". I have absolutely no objection to the material itself, nor a particular attachment to the present title here, but as I said above, I do think there should be an article on "countries" as well as the "political science article". Then there is the further question of whether State stays as a disam page or not. I'm not sure we are all discussing the same issue here. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what this survey is about, too. For what it is worth, personally I (1) do not object to a disambiguation page, (2) object to articles on "sovereign" or "international states" and something else because I (3) think there should be just one article on "state" as a polity and I do not object to using much of the content of this article in that article (state(politics) or state(polity) because all the most notable sources I know simply use the word "state" so we should too and (4) support a separate article on "sovereignty." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the whole process here a bit confusing, but I believe I support the move. I think there then ends up being some question of "what should the new article be about," but I think that can be addressed later on. I'm not sure whether the concept of a state in international relations should be considered distinct enough from the concept of a state in (non-IR) political science as to warrant two separate articles - even if it does, there's no reason to have either of those articles at Sovereign state. john k (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we split this article between "sovereign state" and "state (politics)". If you really want we could rename "sovereign state", "sovereign independent state" although, I previously thought that that was tautology and a bit of a mouthful so I put it in the dab header instead. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Id support splitting the article althought i dont think State (politics) is a good title for the content that would be moved, none of its really "politics" but im not sure what word could be used instead and i think its right state remains a dab. I certainly oppose the "sovereign independent state" name, theres far more sources for using SS than SIS. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose move to State (politics) (how is that, to the general reader, better at excluding Ohio or Bavaria?), but might support PMA's other suggestions State (international law), State (international relations), or something similar. It would still bring up issues of how to name List of sovereign states and the likes, though—do the proposers have a strategy for these? Alternatively, if sovereign state is not good, then why not simply independent country? It's not even a redirect when I write this, but it gets slightly more Google hits than the current title. At any rate, State should remain a dab (and State (disambiguation) should be redirected to it). —JAO • T • C 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think what we call List of sovereign states matters, as long as the criteria for inclusion are clear, as I think they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we have an article about the state which would explain why Ohio, Bavaria, the United States, and Germany are all considered to be states, even though the last two can enter into relations with other states and the first two cannot? What do we make of Bavaria prior to 1918, when it was part of the German Empire but was nonetheless able to conduct its own foreign relations? john k (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be an article on "States" but that does not mean we have to use this page. This is really about if we want states to remain a dab or not. If that is to remain a dab then an article on "states" is going to need a new name and State (politics) doesnt fit the content which we want it to cover. What happens to the article at Sovereign state does not change the problem on what to accurately call a new article about "states".

If an article about "states" is to be made at what ever title, i wouldnt strongly oppose a merger between these articles. Sovereign state (and Nation state) could become sections on a "state" article and we could make these pages redirect to those sections so it doesnt impact on all the articles linking here. That would slim down the duplication, but could we fit so much information on a single article and again what would it be called?

If someone is prepared to put in alot of work to present all the different information about types of states then i would support that becoming a proper article, and moving the basic list to States (disam). Then merging this (and if agreed the Nation states) into sections on the main States article, but i really do think a single article on all these matters is going to be too big.

BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose move to State (politics). While there are interesting points for both opinions, the arguments in favour are not sufficiently convincing. RashersTierney (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support It is simply a matter of following the sources. All the major sources used in this article write about "states," not "soverign states." Sovereignty is a tricky concept and it is always relative; it merits its own article. "State (polity)" would incorporate all significant views by political scientists (in both IR and CP) as well as political philosophers who write about states. Calling this article "Soveriegn state" is practically a neologism and nonsense to boot since officials of New York consider new York to be a soveriegn state. What we have here are some editors injecting their own views into an article, via the title. This violates WP:NOR. let us stick to what significant views in notable and reliable sources say, not some editors' pet theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you; (polity) is better than (politics). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Delete or move. Per John Kenney, Steve Rubenstein, and Septentrionalis. As we keep explaining over and over again, this article is conflating the concepts of sovereignty and state. The concept of the state is one of the most central concepts in scholarship. The fact that Wikipedia at the moment does not have an entry on the state absolutely mind-blowing—a problem on par with an encyclopedia failing to have articles on other concepts like (say) nation, economy, or society. 172 | Talk 19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, "sovereign state" is a well known and used phrase. Google it, there are dozens of examples of it being said at the UN or in other international organisations. Now alot of the text on the article may not be appropriate, but this idea we should just delete the fact that there is such a thing as a sovereign state is pathetic. There is certainly a case for an article on "states", but that does not mean you have to come here and delete an article on Sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a well-known and used phrase which is not the subject of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you then object to a new article wioth that or a similar title? Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not; it may be easiest to clean up sovereignty, but I haven't looked at it in detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Then delete or remove all of the incorrect content, ive never said i support everything on the page.. Just that there is such a thing as a sovereign state, which certain users above seem to be trying to suggest we have made up here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do. The incorrect content (although there may be other errors) consists of the title and the first line. Nobody has denied that there are sovereign states; the subject of this article, however, is the state itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

if there is going to be a proper article on States rather than a dab page then i would support a merger between the two pages, provided there is a section on Sovereign states that we could redirect to. Id also have no problem with most of the content which is just about states being moved to the new page and keep the content here just about sovereigns states. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is as close as we come to a proper article on States. Whether it should replace the dab page (which has to cover a lot of quite unrelated meanings, like the chemical and statistical senses) is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So you want to rename this article so its the main article on the state, but we can create a new article for Sovereign states and put the basic content about it on there or just create a section on this page for Sovereign states which Sovereign states can redirected to? Id be ok with either of those options. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's do that. We need to move this article back to an entry being the main article on the state. One way or another, we must have a main article on the state (one of the most important entries in any encyclopedia); that must be our first priority. Right now, Wikipedia does not have one. 172 | Talk 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

None of the major researchers call them "sovereign states." For Rousseau, the relationship between sovereignty and the state is complex, and we would ill-serve him and many other scholars by making hte main article "sovereign states." Given how many scholars simply use the word "state," I fear "sovereign state" violates NOR. We should have an article called "state (polity)" and a separate article on "sovereignty" that addresses all the complex issues involved in this concept. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear "sovereign state" violates NOR. However, are these users going to let us re-create the entry on the state unless we let them keep-- for whatever reason makes sense to them-- the entry on "state?" I wouldn't be opposed to appeasing them to make some sort of progress here. 172 | Talk 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, people who want to keep "sovereign state" have to prove they are not violating policy. Above BritishWatcher admited that Wales is not a state. That means that there is no need to call the UK a "sovereign" state - it is a state and the word "state" is enough. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But I don't think that they're going to budge. Wikipedia's procedure for deleting articles is flawed. For that reason, years ago I proposed a system of editorial review by specialist contributors; but that idea went nowhere. It's nearly impossible to get anything deleted on AfD if one or two editors lobby against the nomination. Nevertheless, you're more familiar with the website than I am; so I'll defer to you on procedure. How do you suggest we move forward? 172 | Talk 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.