Talk:Nation building

It is nonsense to merge it to nation building because states also can exist without nations!! (elementary in human and state history!!)

The article should definitively not be merged into nation-building, as that term is only used in the American context, the more general term of art is 'state-building'.

I agree Although many writers write 'nation building' when what they might objectively be better viewed as 'state building' (since they are refering mainly to the creation of a state appartus, and less to development of a national identity) the articles should not be merged because the divergence clearly exists in the subject's literature. Wiki shouldn't clearify issues that are not in fact clear.

I agree that these pages should not be merged. The theoretical concept of “the state” and “the nation” are distinct with the former denoting functions and institutions such as the legitimate use of violence and the judiciary. Whereas the latter demotes an imagined community created through shared identity around things such as language or cultural heritage creating a sense of “nationhood”. Therefore, as mentioned above a nation can exist without a state, and building a state does not mean the same as building a nation.

State-building does not necessarily encompass nation-building, but nation-building frequently (always?) encompasses state-building
I agree, state-building and nation-building should remain distinct, but with links to each other. State-building is about building the capacity of a state, primarily but not limited to political, economic, media, and security apparatus. Nation-building is about creating an identity and state-capacity to promote the identity, etc. The fact in the US we still frequently consider state and nation as synonyms should not carry into this particular discussion, save commentary on such.

Further, nation-building, as the entry implies, is generally the goal of a forceful entry, generally uninvited, to stop violence based on socio-ethnic-religious tensions. An intervention, as the article implies, is based on politico-economicy structural failures. WestridgeRunner 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They should not me merged since not only are they distinctly different, but also because the Nation Building article is entirely incorrect as it is describing state building. So in essence there is no article on nation building. (129.97.58.55 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm the person guilty of rewriting much the article back in October 2005 with a focus on nation-building in places like Africa. At that time I was pretty careless about things like 'original research', 'reciting sources', etc. Nevertheless, I believe that the attempt to wrench the article away from its pre-occupation with with 'nation-building' in Iraq was correct. Do a Google on, say, 'nation building africa', and you will find a lot of stuff on the classic concept of nation building. As examples, try the following.

   (A University course)  

Nothing at all like WestridgeRunner's perception that "nation-building ... is generally the goal of a forceful entry, generally uninvited, to stop violence based on socio-ethnic-religious tensions". (The return to a focus on outside force is due to some incorrectly marked 'minor edits' by user Stevertigo in February). The article on Nation building needs to come back to the original sense of nation building ("Nation-building is about creating an identity and state-capacity to promote the identity, etc.", as pointed out above), but with more cited sources. The political debate about Iraq belongs in State building. I therefore oppose merging the articles.

Bathrobe 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)