Talk:State (polity)/Archive 2

Moving forward
Ok as the above poll is split and it was very unclear what the proposal was lets try and sort out what the plan is and see if we can get consensus. The main problems to me seem to be..


 * Alot of this article content is about (states) not Sovereign states


 * There should be an article on states


 * "Sovereign state" is a well known and accepted term used internationally to talk of sovereign countries so needs its own article or at the very least its own section.

So how does this sound (if agreed to on the state article)


 * Move current State page to State (disambiguation)


 * Move Sovereign state page to State


 * Create a new section on the state article called Sovereign states explaining the definition, usage and a link to list of sovereign states.


 * Sovereign states becomes a redirect to the sovereign state section on state


 * Put links to disam page and state (administrative division) at the top of the page.

If we did all those things it would resolve this dispute between the state/sovereign state articles although we do need to remember there is also alot of duplication at Nation state and nation which may need to be addressed in the future. I do not have strong feelings about how these articles should be laid out, just that there is such a thing as a sovereign state and there must be somewhere to redirect to that describes it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Points one and two look good to me, but I think one of the problems people have had with the current location is that the term "sovereign state" is not a good substitute for "state capable of engaging in international relations." Otherwise I think your proposal is right on. john k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For now, I am opposed to any article on "sovereign state" or "state (administrative division)". There is a trememndous amounto f work by historians, anthropologists, political scientists (in international relations, comparative politics and political theory) and political philosophes all on State (polity) and we should focus our work on creating this article.  As a basic principle, I think we should start by identifying the most notable and reliable sources with significant views, and follow their lead.  It is clear to me that in some way, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Weber, Freid, Cohen and Service, Henri Claessen and Peter Skalnik, Philip Abrams, and Chantal Mouffe are all talking about the same thing: "state (polity)" and we have a long ways to go before we have a great article providing good accounts of all their views and what the main debates are over.  This should be our priority.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My sense is that there is very little research on what is being called "administrative units" outside of the context of the research on history of specific countries e.g. the United States so I think discussion of those kinds of entities doesn't really merit its own article, but should be covered in the articles on the united States or linked articles like United States Politics, and so on.Certain countries use the word "state" in specific ways that have to do with the history of those countries, and discusion of the "state' in that context i think can best be handled in the articles about those countries. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that "sovereign state" got 7,220 hits on google books, but so what? We need to look at those hits in conext; I do not believe that these authors are using the phrase to distinguish sovereign states from non-sovereign states. I searched Googl books for "great state" and got 6,220 - not quite as much but still a huge figure, should we therefore have an article in Great states?  No.  What is important is not google hits but how scholars classify different kinds of polities. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be thinking in an overly cynical way; but I can look the other way if one or two articles violating NOR are spawned here so long as we re-create a decent, encyclopedic article on the state. (I guess what I'm proposing can be summed up by the cliché of making a big step forward, and a small step backwards?) I don't think we're going to overcome the opposition from the flood of users who are under the impression that if a term generates Google hits, the term must have any encyclopedia article. (The debate here is also revealing. ) Right now, we have no working article on the state. One way or another, we need to overcome the opposition of users like Johnbod if we are going to re-create an article on the state. 172 | Talk 01:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This hate for the term "Sovereign state" really concerns me and i certainly will strongly oppose any change happening to this article or others until its resolved. 6000 hits in a google book search is a lot as far as im concerned but the books are not what interests me. "Sovereign state" is a modern and reguarly used term in international organisations.


 * "Sovereign state" finds over 500,000 hits on google overall.


 * 3000+ hits for "sovereign state" on United Nations websites


 * Almost 2000 on the European Union website ,


 * Over 100 on NATOs website


 * 500 times on the US State departments website


 * CIA worldfactbook - "Independent state" refers to a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory."


 * Plenty of sources can be found which define a Sovereign state. And if some of you really want to argue there is no such thing as a "Sovereign state" please go over to List of sovereign states and make a comment there about this and see what they say. It is simple fact that "state" is a weak term which can apply to many things, which is why there are so many examples of "Sovereign state" being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you people are so confident your position on this matter is correct, please put this article up for deletion and we will see what happens with a wider input from the community. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, "state" (encompassing both Ohio and Germany) is an extremely important concept, and warrants an article. But "state capable of engaging in international relations" (quoting john k here) is also an extremely important concept, and also warrants an article. As I said before, if "sovereign state" is not a good name for an article on the concept of "state capable of engaging in international relations", then the solution is to move it to another title which better conveys that meaning. To the general reader, the best is probably Independent country. Other suggestions have been made; State (international law), State (international relations) etc. are all reasonable. Nobody is denying anybody the right to create another article called State (political science), State (polity) or something similar (maybe it could even take the dab's place at State), clean up whatever in this article is not about independent countries, and merge that into the main state article. — JAO • T • C 10:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no hatred for the phrase "sovereign state." "Sovereign" is an adjective Like all adjectives, it's job is to modify a noun.  I have no problem with the fact that people use this adjective to modify "state" I just do not think it merits an article.  As for New Jersey, this usage of states to apply to places like New Jersey is so far removed from the debates political scientists, political anthropologists, and political philosophers have, to keep hrowing in the example of New Jersey just muddies the water.  Write an article on State (polity) and deal with US Federalism in the article on the US. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, we are simply reenacting a conflict that occurs all the time at Wikipedia. I want this article to be based on research, and by research I mean going to libraries to find books on reliable and notable sources, and i have named quite a few, and they all use the word "state" and discuss sovereignty as one (but not the only) quality of states.  But there are other Wikipedians whose idea of esearch is just to google things.  This is sad because it would result in Wikipedia just being an enecyclopedia of what is on the web.  I googlde the phrase "great state" and got over a million hits, but this does not mean we should have an article on "great states."  No one questions that people often put an adjective (sovereign) and a noun (state) together, that just does not justify their being an article.  Yes, one reason states can negotiate with other states is because of their sovereignty, but this is a quality of a state and not a kind of state.  BritishWatcher doesn't understand this and I infer it is because she has never read Aristotle or Hobbes or Freid or Abrams.  I think this article should be written by people whose idea of researchinvolves more than hitting the enter key on their computer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are obviously looking at one set of books, that reflect your own interests. All your suggestions, here and at the other article, have concerned the internal arrangements of states, and the history and development of the concept - OED meanings I 29 and I 32. Arguably most general readers are as likely to look for this material under government, with which there is obviously considerable overlap. I repeat that we need an article on the state as "country" or unit in international relations (OED I 30), not least because such material has been removed from country. We do at least seem to agree that these two meanings are not best combined in a single article. I am flexible as to exact titles, but these different and important concepts both need covering. Many of the references you make seem to be to a third articles Development of the concept of a state, which would also be fine, if we had the material. Given all this, I can't see any single article taking the plain term, which should stay at the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think part of the problem is that when we use the word 'state' and the phrase 'sovereign state', we are 1) talking about concepts, not things and 2) we are referring to concepts that are (in the opinion of some editors) sufficiently different to warrant either separate articles or at least dedicated sections within an article. Certainly the concepts are disputed as to their characteristics since the theories behind them are usually derived from competing political ideologies. I do think BritishWatcher's proposal, if followed, should help to move this mess in a direction where we can systematically address the naming issue in dispute. (Further, I wouldn't dismiss Google as a poor research tool, nor does a source become elevated simply from being found in a library.) RashersTierney (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned the names of specific people whose boks are found in the library. It is unfair for you to respond to my comment with a generic point about libraries when I twice specified some of the authors of books in the library I was referring to.  You know I was not making a generic comment.  For you to act as if I did is a failure to assume good faith. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Highlighting an incidental flaw in your general statement above, though critical, was categorically not an example of bad faith, and your assumption about it should have been WP:AGF. Your reply on the other hand most certainly was, and does nothing to progress this issue. RashersTierney (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It does a good deal to "progress" the issue. There will be no progress on this issue until we move away from OR towards building up an article based on the most significant views from the most notable sources.  Your efforts to circument NOR and NPOV will get us nowhere. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An alternative proposal
Here's my alternative proposal:

1. Move this article to State (polity) and revert it the the version that many of you seem to think was better than the current version. (If you wish to then move that article to State, you can discuss that at Talk:State.)

2. We can then re-create an article at Sovereign state bases on some of its current content.

A defence of sovereign state: Saying that sovereign states exist, that Ohio is not a sovereign state but that France is, is not original research. It may be bad research but that's a different issue. We didn't invent it, so it's not original. I can see that there is room for a section in the (to be created) sovereign state article pointing out that the term is an (aledged) misnomer. But I do think that Wikipedia should have an article on this commonly used and heard term. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an "alleged" misnomer. Please consider this speech, in which the Supreme Court of Ohio quotes the State Government. Ohio is a sovereign state; it has irrevocably limited itself to (among other things) have no foreign policy. But its authority (as what Kantorowicz, above, would call a constitutional state) is original, not derived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who disagree and still think that Wikipedia shoudln't have an article entitled "Sovereign State" can — after the above proposed move is performed — try for AfD. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support this, but would prefer State (international relations) or some other title for the "sovereign" article. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, including the amendment. Let's hear objections, if any. Since this can be done without calling for an admin, we can just do it if there aren't any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With Johnbod's amendment, I think I'd agree. I am an admin, so I can move any pages that need to be moved over a delete - let me know if you need me to do that. john k (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the suggestion although i oppose the idea that it should be at (international law). the Article if there is to be an article on sovereign states, should be at Sovereign state. If you mean State (international relations) instead of State (polity), then i would prefer that. Its a much clear term BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still prefer the simplicity of Independent country, but as I said previously I will accept State (international relations) or State (international (law) as well for the article on independent countries. As for the suggested procedure, it looks fine to me. As long as Wikipedia has both an article about the state in the general, constitutional, political sense and an article about the state that is a subject of international law, I'm happy. The latter is pretty much the same as independent countries—but as someone pointed out above with the Bavaria example, even this is not entirely clearcut, considering for instance that some subnational entities have even been UN members. Close enough though. — JAO • T • C 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't go moving around articles and creating alternative ones until the RM is closed, y'all. It is fine to suggest "alternative proposals", but not fine to act on them until the RM is closed. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with what appears to be consensus, please state your substantive reasons. If not, what is the point here? The only reason WP:RM requires an admin is that some moves need the admin bit. This didn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood. See Talk:Sovereign state, particularly the part beginning "Im getting lost here". If someone wants to decide that there is a consensus to move, close the RM. Then move. Otherwise it gets very confusing. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the move?
AFAICT there was no consensus for moving sovereign state to state (polity) I am against the move and I think we should go back to the name sovereign state unless there is a clear consensus to move the article. I may have missed something so could someone please point me to the section before this one where there was a clear consensus for the move? --PBS (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can just see an English speaking person who knows that there are two Georgias who wants to find out more about sovereign states searching on that well known common combination of words to describe a sovereign state "State polity". I think not! --PBS (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that the article was split and that there is still an article at sovereign state. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have a complete mix up as to articles as indicated by the dab page state.
 * Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in international public law
 * State (polity), the state in sociology and political science
 * Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation.
 * State (administrative division), a component state of a federal state
 * State (law), a well-defined jurisdiction, with its own set of laws and courts


 * Take state (law) and sovereign state as defined on the dab page, means that "state (law)" is a super set of "sovereign state". Also sovereign state and nation state are confused because a nation state does not mean "a state which coincides with a nation" as the term is more often used to mean sovereign state, for example all the national states which consist of more than one nation such as the United Kingdom, are all of them members of the United Nations. Inside the state (polity) it says "However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law" So what is Edinburgh if not a national capital?
 * --PBS (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a brisk and fraudulent debate over whether Iraq was a nation-state before the Gulf War, in which Colin Powell took a large part. That was not whether Iraq was sovereign, but whether it was a single nation.


 * Edinburgh is a national capital; but Scotland has not been a state since 1707. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

State (polity) → Sovereign state — When the RM to move Sovereign state to State (politics) was closed as no consensus, that means that the pre-emptive move to State (polity) should have been reverted. Right now all we have is mass confusion, and archives in the wrong place. - 199.125.109.19 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * State (polity) → Sovereign state
 * Sovereign state → ?

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - The current article at Sovereign state is good and should not be moved from its location or see huge amounts of information from this page merged onto it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And why does it get to use the name Sovereign state, and not Sovereign state (independent state)?. This article is the more general one and should retain the name Sovereign state, per the consensus above (no consensus at this time). This article is the one that gets to use the name Sovereign state, not that one that is currently at Sovereign state. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per widespread discussion last time; the system worked, producing widespread agreement on something that was not either of the original options. This is the more general article, and has the more general title; that's the way it ought to be. This article doesn't discuss sovereignty at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I've moved the talk archive as it was posted at WP:RM. If the page is to be moved back, please be careful to catch fallout like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are over 1500 links intended to go to this page that now go to Sovereign state. See above. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think there would be over 1500 that are intended to go to this article which currently send people to Sovereign state. The major link repair project above says about links now ending up at State which is a disam page, not links all going to sovereign state unless someone did go and change alll of them incorrectly. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, if you move a page, you expect all the links to it to need to be moved. In this case what happened is the page was split, so some of the links should have been moved to the new page, which should have been given a new name, and this page should remain at Sovereign state, so that the links that are supposed to go here will still go here. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Major link repair project" was created when this article was moved from "Stats" to "Sovereign state". Moving this article back to "State", and "State" to "State (disambiguation)" would partially solve it, although there'd still be plenty of links to "State" that should really point toward "Sovereign state" (mostly articles about international relations). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:07, 23 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.

Same or different article?
There's an article called Sovereign State. Isn't a state by definition itself sovereign? If that is so, to call a state 'sovereign' is redundant. Plus the fact that the article talks about virtually the same thing as this article, I'm starting to think that these 2 articles are talking about the same thing essentially and that one should be merged into the other. Liu Tao (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the same feeling about this article when I ran across it, especially since this article defines a "state" with "State refers to a set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory". I do like the way this article distinguishes "country", "nation" and "state" but I'm curious about where the definitions came from.  They appear to be missing citations.  Such citations could be very useful. Readin (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in colloqual English language, these terms all mean the same. The definition of 'state' comes from Political scientists, however they don't have definitions for 'country' and 'nations' as their subject does not concern about 'country' and 'nation'; they only worry about what is or is not a state.  As for 'country' and 'nation', I'm not sure where the definition comes from, though I suspect they come from the roots of the terms came to be.
 * Anyways, if these 2 articles are talking of the same thing, then these 2 articles should be merged. Liu Tao (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed from the rest of this talkpage, this topic have been extensively discussed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye I have, but I feel that the discussions did not mention my points and that the arguments made are weak as well as not making any sense. Even with the edits you have made, they make no sense either.  You just took what I said and added a hapnote.  From a typical political scientist's point of view, your edits makes no sense because of how you described the definition of a sovereign state is what a state is in political science as well.  These 'subjects' ARE the states that are studied and defined in political science, they are the same thing.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the hatnote by way of responding to your points. I did it because one used to be there and its useful for disambiguation.
 * You may think that these two articles cover the same thing, but they cover them from different perspectives. A state in the eyes of a political scientist just isn't quite the same thing as a state in the eyes of an international lawyer. The concept of sovereignty can be disputed but like it or not "sovereign state" for the name of the other article is a common phrase used to describe sovereign independent states, and is better than "State (international law)". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you are telling me these 2 articles are just forks of different perspectives of the same thing. You say that a state to the eyes of a political scientist is different then the state in the eyes of an international lawyer.  Then tell me, what is the difference?  Cause I certainly see no difference.  The definition you give for Sovereign State applies to the definition of a State (Polity) as well.  Liu Tao (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ohio would be a state and a federated state but not a sovereign state. The Aden Protectorate would have been a state and for a time a federated state but not a sovereign state. And the same would go for the Kingdom of Tondo as it existed long before the more modern idea of sovereignty gained currency. France is a state and a sovereign state but not a federated state. On the other hand all of these places are (or were) jurisdictions. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might also be pointed out that Wikipedia currently has a list of sovereign states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the eyes of a political scientist, Ohio is not a 'state'. It is an administrative division that's called a 'state', but is not an actual 'state'.  Reason why Ohio's not a state is because Ohio doesn't fit the definition of a state because Ohio is not sovereign.  The state described in this article is the state in the eyes of a political science as well as the state described in the sovereign state article.
 * The Kingdom of Tondo may have existed long before the modern idea of sovereignty, but in the eyes of a Political scientist, it is still a state until it surrendered its sovereignty to the Spanish. As for the Aden Protectorate, I don't know much about it, but as I've said, as long as it was not under the subject of British laws, then it is sovereign and therefore a state.  The minute it came under British rules and laws, it is not a state and vice-versa.  It's simple as that.  A state has to be sovereign, if it is not sovereign, then it is not a state.  That is how 'state' is defined in political science.  Anymore 'differences' you would like to bring up?  I just shot down those 3 examples of yours.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In previous discussions about this very topic, other editors insisted that states, such as the ones I listed, were states and were sovereign. Whatever the true position, I don't think we can say that Ohio isn't a state given that it's universally referred to as one. I may, however, have to adjust my argument on the state in political science bit. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said, if the political entity was sovereign, then it is a state.
 * Ohio is a state in the sense of an administrative regional sense. The 'state' that Ohio is is an administrative division, it is not the same 'state' that Political scientists refers to as 'state'.  Ohio is not a 'state' by political definition, simply because it is not sovereign.  A political state by definition must be sovereign, therefore the 'state' described in this article does not pertain to Ohio.  That 'state' you are looking for is here.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely see the sense in what you're saying but how can we be sure that when political scientists refers to the "state", they only meant sovereign independent ones? Most things that I've read on the topic appear to avoid carefully defining exactly what is meant by "state". Many federated states claim to retain a residual sovereignty. "Federated state" was moved from "State (administrative division)" because quite a few editors felt that the division was not purely administrative. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because that is the definition of a 'state' in political science. In political science, a state must be sovereign by definition.  No political scientist would say that a federated state is a political state, because it is not sovereign.  The definition of sovereignty is that it retains all powers of sovereignty, meaning it alone governs itself with supreme lawmaking authority.  No higher entity has the power to make laws for them.  That is the definition of sovereignty.  As for Federated states, you say they exercise some sovereignty, but are they fully sovereign?  No they are not.  If there is a government above you that has the power to enact any laws that applies to you, then you are not sovereign.  This is like doing true and false questions, if even a bit of a statement is not true, then the statement itself is not true.  There are no middle lines, it's either true or false.  Issue on sovereignty, same thing.  You're either sovereign or not.  Doesn't matter how much law making powers you have over yourself, but if there's a higher up that can make laws for you, then you're not sovereign.  In political science the term 'state' has been defined clearly as a political entity with it's own territory, population, and sovereign government.  If any of these 3 criterias are not met, then it is not a 'state' in the context of political science.  If a political scientist is referring to Ohio as a state, he's referring to it as a Federated state, not a political state.  In that case, he is not talking in the context of political science.  If he was talking in the context of political science, he would be referring to Ohio as a 'Administrative State', 'Federated State', etc etc, but he would never refer to it as just 'state'.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
The use of the names of buildings to refer to the sources of power that reside in them goes back to ancient Egypt: the word Pharaoh derives from the Egyptian phrase usually transliterated as "pr-'3", meaning "big house". Pamour (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

max weber and legitimate violence
The translation "violence" for "Staatsgewalt" is unfortunate. The second part usually means "violence", but in this particular compound the normal understanding in English has to be "authority". I can only hope that the word "violence" has not been used by any sort of "authoritative" translation of Weber's work, because I think it would misrepresent Weber. Pamour (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I am proposing a merge with the sovereign_state article. My reasons and explanations have already been posted in the previous 'same or different article' section, but I will re-state my main statement: These articles are talking about the same thing. Liu Tao (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "the state" and a "sovereign state". "The state" does not have to be an independent sovereign state. I strongly oppose Sovereign state being renamed or merged into this one and i think it would be unhelpful to take lots of text from this article and dump it on the sovereign state article.


 * I would support a rewording of the info at the top of the article where it links to sovereign state on this page to make the distinction more clear about what the two articles are for. Just " For an article about the subjects of international law," does not seem as clear as it could be. I am also not a big fan of "polity" in this article title, perhaps a different term could be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about that 'the state' does not have to be an independent sovereign state? The definition of a 'state' is that it IS sovereign, it is sovereign by definition, if it is not sovereign, then it is not a state.  'Sovereign' is defined as its government theoretically being the 'highest organ' of the state, meaning there's no government 'above' its own government.  That's the definition of a 'state' in political science.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said on the other article, if there is a clear difference it has to be made in the lead asap or the articles should be merged. I've alerted others to get into this debate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree -- Sovereign state should be merged into this one. I cannot find any clear distinction in any reliable sources. If anything, such a debate would warrant a sentence or two here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course someone has to do the work of putting it together. So many articles, so little time. But we'll give dissenters a few more days and see how has the energy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Oxford, a "state" is 'an organised political community under one government'. A "polity" is 'an organised society; a state as a political entity'. Ideally, the article at State (polity) should address the generic concept of "the state" in political science. Generally speaking, especially in historical contexts, the concept of the state is vaguely defined, and a number of defintions exist in political theory. The article at Sovereign state should address the definition of a state in current international law, a definition which derives from the values of Westphalian sovereignty, where statehood is defined by its citizenship. I oppose the merge, as there is a valid purpose behind the separation of these articles. Night w (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for pointing out that distinction -- I was not aware of it. In light of this, I'm not so sure about my support for a merge now, so for now, consider it temporarily retracted while I do some pondering ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The two concepts are related but different as Night W stated above, it is possible to have a state as a polity that is not soveriegn. For example the subordinate polity in a suzerainty is a state, yet is not fully soveriegn as such in international law. Another example would be the states in a federation that have ceded portions of their soveriegnty to a national government, as in the United States or the Russian Federation.XavierGreen (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As said before, the state described in this article is of the state in the context of Political Science. In POLISCI, states MUST be equal.  'Federated States' like those of the USA and Russian Federation are NOT states by the definition of POLISCI as they are not sovereign.  The definition's got nothing to do with the definition provided by Oxford or by any other dictionaries.  The definition of a state provided for by POLISCI is very distinct, a state must have all of three things to be a state:
 * 1. Territory
 * 2. Population
 * 3. Sovereign Government
 * If it lacks any one of these, than it's not a state in context of POLISCI. Based upon this definition, it's no different than that provided by the Sovereign State article, that is I still do not see one.  Liu Tao (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if there is to be a merger which i do not think there should be. Sovereign state should be the primary article and keep its title with the contents of this partly being merged onto that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I don't really mind which article merges into which as long as a merge happens. But still, state your reasons why you still think there should not be a merge.  I want to hear them so I can debate them.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose the merger. The state as currently recognized by post-Westphalian international law (a sovereign state) is not always the same as the state as a polity, as demonstrated by the examples given by XavierGreen.  Furthermore, the state as a polity, a concept widely used in political science, defies the simple definitional distinction provided above by Liu Tao.  That distinction may have survived an undergraduate program but would not stand up in a broader context that reviews all literature within political science.  The federated states of the US, for just one example, are clearly state polities within the broader context of political science discourse, yet they are not sovereign states.  N2e (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What Liu Tao has provided is one theorum of identifying "sovereignty" (as it is currently defined) in a state: the declarative theory of statehood, codified in 1933 under the Montevideo Convention. But I believe, Liu Tao, that you are missing the point. The definition of a "state" is basic; it does not require "sovereignty" (as it is currently perceived). And the concept of the state has consistently evolved. This is where political science will now make the distinction between the "state" (as an organised political entity) and a "sovereign state", which possesses sovereignty in current international law. Night w (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I have learned in POLISCI, the definition of a state does require sovereingty. In the field of political science when talking on a state, the standard definition always includes 'sovereignty'.  If you're not talking about a polity that is not a 'state', than you make the distinction by saying 'American State', 'Administrative state', or 'Federated State'.  Within political science, when saying 'state', it usually refers to the definition given above.
 * Anyways, aye, I still don't get what you're trying to tell me. I mean, here are the definitions provided for each other in their own respective articles:
 * State (polity) - (1) A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty  over a definite territory. In Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory". It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police. (2) State refers to a set of governing institutions that has sovereignty over a definite territory
 * Sovereign state - An independent, sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.[1]  While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
 * I've been trying to read all of both articles, and currently to me they're talking about literally the same thing. The definitions they've provided are generally the same, just worded differently.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IN response to an editor writing in Sovereign state: It is quite common for international treaties to refer to sovereign states as "States", but they're not talking about Ohio, hence why we use the adverb. Part of the reason this article was created was that lots of editors were writing sovereign states in articles as they realise the English word "state" can apply to both Ohio and France, but wanted to just about about states like France. I wrote: The other option is to remove all the general info that belongs under the State (polity) article (which is better explained there anyway) and make the Sovereign state article refer only to the international definition and then have mention of the international definition in the first paragraph of the State (polity) article. Anyone want to do it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The same is with the state (polity) article, it only talks about the 'sovereign' states. The definition given for state in the article preaches sovereignty, or more literally, monopoly as well.  The 'state' in this article only applies to France, not Ohio.  To remove all of the information in this article that plays the same as sovereign state[ would be to remove the entire article itself, hence a merge.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sovereign state includes a part which says: "which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state", hence the sovereign part. CarolMooreDC: Please go right ahead and do what you suggest. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And the State (polity) article includes a part which says: monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory, which means the same thing. A monopoly means it has full power and jurisdiction over its governed territory, AKA sovereignty.
 * CarolMooreDC, I'd suggest you to put your edits on hold whilst this discussion is still going. Liu Tao (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in no hurry. So you don't think there is sufficient in State Sovereignty article on the "international use" to warrant a State sovereignty article? It looks easily merged into State (polity) to me but obviously one or more people disagree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean, can you explain a bit more on what you mean? Liu Tao (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol's motion would be a great improvement. Night w (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean that people have brought up some interesting, if not totally convincing arguments for keeping at least a short version of the page which is why that is what I am proposing as a compromise. And after that one still would have the option of proposing merging or AfDing that page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And how does that work? Liu Tao (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Take everything out of Sovereign State except any WP:RS that very specifically defines that term as having a very specific meaning in international law. It looks like most of them deal either are general to state or deal with the issue of sovereignty as part of the larger state issue. Note I found only two books that seemed to concern themselves with Sovereign State concept in books google search. Also note complicating things slightly is the existence of this article List_of_sovereign_states. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sovereign states is a far clearer term to the word "country" which is why it was used. There needs to be an article on Sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you address the issues I brought up, of narrowing it to the most relevant WP:RS references and not using it as synonym for the state in general? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not mind stuff being taken off that article and put in this one. I simply oppose merging these two articles or getting rid of sovereign state article all together. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet you still fail to provide a reason not to merge. These 2 articles talks about the same thing, if not merge then what?  You can't have 2 articles talking about the same thing.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my revised opinion: I now think we should pretty much do the opposite. By talking about Weber's definition in this article we confuse state with sovereign state, since IMHO Weber was talking about sovereign states. If you look you your average dictionary it will define state as:
 * "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government"
 * "the territory, or one of the territories, of a government."
 * Using a definition like these on this article would draw a clear distinction between State (polity) and Sovereign state. Or in short we should take things out of this article and put it in the other one. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, but the definition of the 'state' in this article has already been established. You're talking about forking this article into a different view of a political state.  That's not grounds for forking, that's grounds to get this article deleted.  What you'll be doing is make this article a stud, further leading it to deletion due to the still unclear question of whether the state described in this article is the state in the other article.  That's the real question here whether to merge or not.  We merge because the articles are talking about the same thing, we don't merge if we can finalise that they are not.  What you are suggesting is not a merge or a deletion, you're suggesting a fork.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're being a bit dramatic. There's no need, much less justification, for deleting anything. You don't need to look beyond the Etymology section of this article to see that it applies more to the state as I defined it above than as defined by the current lead. The other sections fit too. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking anymore beyond the definition. The definition as provided multiple times, defines a state as A state is a set of institutions  that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty  over a definite territory.  It states very specifically that a state has sovereignty over its territory, now tell me how is that definition different from that of a 'sovereign state'?  Liu Tao (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are these multiple instances you speak of? I'm proposing to change the lead to "A 'state is a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".
 * Btw, when the "State" article was split between "State (polity)" and "Sovereign state" (after considerable debate on the subject) the section entitled "Empirical and juridical senses of the word state" was moved to "Sovereign state" along with the other sections on state recognition in international law. Where it has now renamed "De facto and de jure states". — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'multiple' times are the many times that I've pulled the lord knows how many given definitions of 'state' within the article.
 * Anyways, there you go, as I've already said, what you are doing is proposing to fork this article by changing the established definition of a 'state' to that of another definition. We've already established what the 'state' in this article is, what you're doing is to 'tweak' the definition to a slightly different one so that it represents a different POV of what a 'state' is.  That's called forking.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is any POV is this article it is that it follows your line of reasoning that: "A state has to be sovereign, if it is not sovereign, then it is not a state" (quoted from above). The U.S. States are universally called states, yet you persist in the view that they are not states. NPOV would dictate that we should adopt as wide a definition as we can. If that means merging this article to sovereign state and then writing a new State (polity) then so be it. But I, and as far as I can see pretty much every editor here except Liu Tao, think that this can be achieved by a rewrite and, where appropriate, moving sections to the appropriate article.
 * If you disagree with this approach you (Liu Tao) can always propose one or other article for deletion. But the merge request is dead. There is near unanimous opposition. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What you have just quoted from me is me referring to the definition of a 'state'. The definition of a 'state' specifically says that a state must have sovereignty over some sort of permanent territory or population (reword it anyway you like, it's still the same).  The 'US States' you refer to are not 'states' in this case, which I have also pointed out numerous times.  The 'state' in this article does NOT apply to the states in the USA.  The problem here is not with me, but with you in the fact that you cannot successfully grasp the concept of a 'state'.  Yes, the states in the USA are 'states', but they are not the 'state' in this article.  You have 2 people named 'John', does that mean they're the same person?
 * Don't think I don't know what you have done. You made that break so that the original discussion on merging stops and gets lead here where people bother little to watch.  I'm merging the 2 sections.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's refute, this is getting nowhere. I am say that the 'state' in this article refers to what you call a 'sovereign state'.  Now, I want you to tell me what the 'state' in this article is referring to.  Don't go weaseling for a definition from a dictionary, I want you to tell me exactly what you think it is referring to.  I need to know exactly what the state of your mind is.  So far you have yet to tell me your POV, I need to know just what your concept on this matter is.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge per Nightw & others. Support clarifying the difference & shifting content around as necessary. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So is anyone against doing this? Barring strong good arguments, I'd say, go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm against any 'breaking' at all. To 'break' would be to fork.  I am in for a merge.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, got that. Just not clear when you seem to reply to yourself above who you are asking your question of, esp since you post out of order, after yourself. I personally don't care if there's a merge, but those who don't want it should just make difference clear in the Sovereign state article and delete redundant material to this article, and I'd be OK with that too (and others seem to be getting to that consensus). Since there's a lot of input, maybe we need to list who thinks what. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said, I think that State (polity) and Sovereign State are essentially the same article in the sense that they are talking of the same thing, a 'state' that has territory, a permanent population, and a sovereign government (can be interpreted or reworded in multiple ways). Liu Tao (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Counter proposal
Ok, here's my counter proposal to a merger. The end point of this proposal to have two articles:


 * The first article would either here (State (polity)) or at State (clear primary topic). It would deal with the generic concept of the state. The lead would look like:


 * The other article would be at Sovereign state. It's lead would look like:


 * Please not these are suggested leads to give an idea of what the respective articles would look like.


 * This end result would be achieved through rewriting the current Sovereign state and State (polity), and by moving paragraphs between them as appropriate. It would of course be a work in progress for a time (i.e. not be that consistent) but so is pretty much everything else on the encyclopedia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Against - Liu Tao (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support — (hey folks, I think we are supposed to provide a rationale for our positions in these sorts of things so that Wikipedia does not devolve into majority voting.) Rationale: as discussed above, the distinctions between Sovereign State and the term state as used in political theory and political science is well established.  It is, in fact, a distinction with a difference.  Therefore, Wikipedia should simply reflect that distinction fairly and in a WP:NPOV way in two articles.  I believe the gist and general direction of the "counter proposal" accomplishes this.  N2e (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - keeping two articles with those two intros. The issue of it being at state or remaining at State (polity) depends what other contents would remain on the page. I think id rather state remain a dab page, but i may change my mind on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support — A well composed alternative, and a great improvement.  Night w   08:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - if you got the WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like the logical thing to do in light of the previous merge discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - This proposal follows current political science conventions and definitions of the terms.XavierGreen (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly against The idea that a sovereign state must have a monopoly of force is two centuries out of date. The existence of federal states disproves it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Septentrionalis, but I think you've misunderstood what this poll was about. It's not about enforcing a statement in sovereign state to the effect that such states have "a monopoly on the use of force within its borders." It was just above establishing some clear water between the state (polity) and sovereign state articles. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It proposes explicit - and erroneous - phrasing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It explicitly says that the leads are suggested. Deleting the words: "and has a monopoly on the use of force within its borders" would not even significantly alter the proposal, it was a throwaway addition. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blue-Haired Lawyer has done a good job, but if we choose to use the proposed definition, then Sovereign state would become an Article whose subject is a POV that does not reflect the views of a significant portion of the family of nations. That would be acceptable, but I think we should clarify the usage of the term sovereign in both the modern and 19th century sense in a single article. Here is some material for consideration:
 * The wide acceptance of the right of self-determination as an international law norm has led many scholars in the fields of political science and international law to question the usefulness of the concept of the "sovereign state". See for example Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, 1999
 * Ralph Wilde explains that in cases of colonial trusteeship "the racialized concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples." See pdf file page 10
 * Wikipedia has many articles that anachronistically identify nations as "Sovereign States" (e.g. List of sovereign states in 1919) despite the fact that, at the time, the United States and other governments considered them Semi-Sovereign States, Protected Independent States, Guaranteed States, Neutralized States, Vassal States, Colonial Protectorates, Spheres of Influence, Administered Provinces, Autonomous Colonies and Dependencies, and Members of Federal Unions and of Confederacies. See Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919 Who decides?
 * There have always been examples of states which forced others into situations of dependency or some other protected status of limited sovereignty against their will. By the 1860s, those situations were recognized as an abuse of power. See sections 8, 9, and 10 on pages 187 and 188 for a discussion on mid-19th century norms of "International Law", By Henry Wager Halleck
 * It has always been considered a given in international law that entities under Protectorates and Mandates were States. See for example Lassa Oppenhiem, International law: a treatise, Volume 1, Longmans, Green, 1905, page 138, "International Position of States Under Protectorates" and Williams, John Fischer, Lauterpacht, Hersh editors, International Law Reports, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, ISBN: 0521463483, page 48
 * Wilson's Fourteen Points introduced the principle that there were no proper limits on the sovereignty of states according to the laws which they themselves had established for the government of their relations with one another. He claimed that the neutralized state of Belgium should enjoy unlimited sovereignty in common with other states.
 * As part of the process of determining "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate", the Council of the League of Nations looked into the meaning of the phrase "until such time as they are able to stand alone" and determined "that to demand that a mandated territory be able to maintain its integrity against external aggression was to ask more than could be furnished by many small states today." The Persian representative said that it should not be a condition of the territory's emancipation that it have the capacity to maintain its territorial integrity and political independence. He noted that "States already members of the League, the Council was aware, might not always be able to defend themselves against attacks by countries stronger than themselves. That was why Article 10 was included in the Covenant." See Luther Harris Evans, "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, page 746 and 751-752.
 * The public international law of the American states, as reflected in the Montevideo Convention and the Charter of the Organization of American States, laid down the principle that "States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.", e.g.
 * The 1963 US State Department Digest explained: "A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223.
 * Landmark cases involving "sovereign" immunity for "acts of state" have involved protected or dependent states. See for example Clayco Petroleum Corporation and Bruce Clayman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental of Umm Alqaywayn, Inc., and Armand Hammer, Defendants-appellees Footnote 1:"This court has held that the government of Umm Al Qaywayn is a foreign sovereign for purposes of the act of state doctrine. Occidental v. Buttes, 331 F.Supp. at 113. This determination was made when that nation was one of the Trucial States; the sheikdom is now part of the United Arab Emirates. This change does not warrant a redetermination of the sheikdom's status."
 * In Kletter v Dulles the United States District Court, District of Colombia ruled that Palestine was a foreign state and that naturalization under Palestinian law constituted an act of expatriation under United States law:"The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations Mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.' ... 'Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce.' See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254."

harlan (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I'm not sure how any of this relates to this now implemented proposal which only really related to the lead of this article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In international law State (polity) and Sovereign State are the same topic. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention does not mention the racialized concept of sovereignty. Under the Montevideo Convention the contracting states agreed in Article 4 that "States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one does not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law." Article 10 of the Charter of the Organization of American States says the same thing. The US is a contracting party to the Montevideo Convention. I quoited a portion of the State Department Digest of International Law above which explains that independence is not a requirement for statehood. The Executive and judicial branches have decided that dependent and protected states enjoy foreign sovereign immunity for their acts of state in US courts. I cited a case above which involved a trucial protected state. harlan (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not about international law. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what is the article about? Liu Tao (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Do existing WP:RS support that or do you have new ones? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no 'state' that covers both federated states and sovereign states, the 2 are very distinct entities, one is sovereign one and the other is an administrative region. This article has clearly of being talking only about a state that which is sovereign. The article you are proposing to change this article into is no needed, as there is already a DAB for it. I support merging thing article into sovereign state and moving everything in this article to the said article or vice versa. Liu Tao (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Amongst other definitions of the word state, my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the following:
 * "3 (also State) a an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. b such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America."
 * — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And is that the state at which this article is referring to? Or is it just the only definition that you can find which doesn't mean the same as a 'sovereign state'?  We're talking about the state in the terms of Political Science as previously established, which is NOT what your definition just described.  Your definition covers both a sovereign state and a federated state, the state in POLISCI is sovereign.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your arguments, Liu Tao, are confusing, and show a lack of comprehension of the concept of "sovereignty". As previously pointed out, "states"—whatever the kind—are inherently sovereign in some degree. Sovereignty is divisible; when a state becomes part of a federal union, its sovereignty is altered, but is not abolished. The Sovereign state article should refer to the state as a subject of current international law, in which sovereignty is exercised both internally and externally. Your restrictive definitions, in any case, are unreferenced.  Night w   08:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are polities which are run under the structure of a state yet are not soveriegn, and their are other polities that are soveriegn yet not run under the structure of a state. As such it is nessesary to have articles on both the concept of the state as a form of political structure and a seperate article on the state as a type of soveriegn entity.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Night w - My 'sovereignty' is defined as being the highest organ of power over a defined territory. If a state becomes a part of a federation, it is no longer sovereign as it now comes under the control of another government.  Yes, there are 'levels' of sovereignty, but when I talk of sovereignty I talk of absolute sovereignty.
 * XavierGreen - So are you saying that this article should be on the concept of the state as a form of political structure? Liu Tao (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes, the terms soveriegnty and state do not equate to the same thing. Throughout history their have be soveriegn polities that have not followed the structure of a state (independent towns, tribes, nomadic groups, mediatisated monarchs, the ICRC and SMOM) and likewise polities that have been organized as states yet have not possesed full soveriegnty. The article state (polity) should be about the political structure of statehood which does not require soveriegnty to be established. The states of the United States, Germany, Australia, and the Swiss Cantons for example are all polities run as states though they have ceeded the larger part of their soveriegnty to a federal authority.XavierGreen (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, from what I understand, the independent towns and tribes are states if they are sovereign. I mean, I know that sovereignty and state are not the same thing, but from what I understood, sovereignty is part of what a state has including other things like territory and a permanent population.  I dunno, I guess my teachers had a different discipline than you guys did.  What they've told me is that political scientists only consider something a 'state' only if it has full sovereignty in the sense of being the 'top' government of the said territory and people.  I mean, they said that in that case, federated states would not be 'states'.  I dunno, I'm somewhat confused now, I'll try paying them a visit.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Statehood refers to the structure of government of the polity, although the majority of soveriegn entities in existance today are organized along the lines of a state a few still are not. For example the society on North Sentinel Island is soveriegn yet is most likely not organized as a state likewise the ICRC and SMOM are internationally recognized as soveriegn polities yet are not states. Situations where soveriegn entities are not states are rare today, yet were quite common in the past. Even individuals can have international personality and be considered soveriegn without possesing territory, such as the various mediatisated monarchs of various german states whos territories were absorbed by other states. Despite the fact that the monarchs no longer possesed any territory, they still were recognized by their peers as retaining international personality.XavierGreen (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is both territory and a population are part of the criteria for an entity to be a 'state'. The ICRC and SMOM would not be states as they have no territory or permanent population.  Liu Tao (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, both those entities along with the Holy See are considered under international law to be soveriegn bodies with international personality yet not to be states. The structure of government is also what makes a state a state, a polity can have both territory and population and yet not be defined as a state, but still be soveriegn.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what polities have territory, population, and sovereignty yet is not a state? Liu Tao (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only ones existing today would be some uncontacted tribes that have not ceded their soveriegnty to foriegn powers. In the past their were a wide range of independent towns, Imperial abbeys, feudal lordships, chiefdoms, and other entities that each had defined territories populations and soveriegnty yet were not organized along the lines of states.XavierGreen (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, under the definition of a 'state', they are states then. Their refusal to surrender their sovereignty means that they are still sovereign with full control and administration over their 'population' and 'territory'.  Their territory may be 'included' in those of their 'respective' states, but the 'respective' states holds no administration over the 'tribal territories'.  I mean, all they've really done is draw a line and say 'everything behind this line is mine', but they've never really administered the territory.  The territory and population remains outside their controls.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that they all may be claimed by states now, they existed outside of those claims in the past.XavierGreen (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they are claimed by other states, I'm saying that they themselves are individual states with their own territory, population, and government regardless of how 'primitive' they are. If they control their territory and population, then they are states.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A state requires a centralized structure of government loose coalition of tribes or a monestary does not constitute a state. Likewise soveriegn entities without a defined territory such as a roving pack of stateless nomads, a mediatisated monarch, or the SMOM are not states yet are still soveriegn.XavierGreen (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does a loose coalition of tribes or a monestary not constitute a state? What of the Iroquous Confederation or any other Confederacies eg. the Confederate US?  And what defines 'centralised'?  Some states are more centralised then others, take the difference between Federations like the United States and Unitary States like Saudi Arabia.  And even if a loose coalition of tribes don't constitute a state, what about the individual tribes then?  A coalition would be tribes working together, yet have no central government, but then that would mean that the individual tribes would each retain their own sovereignty.  The sovereignty in coalitions lie in the participants, not the coalition itself, so in that case it would mean that each of the individual tribes would be individual states then.  I assume that each tribe has some kind of 'centralised government'.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A defined territory and population would be considerations that need to be taken into account here. john k (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And which is what I have said. The tribes each has their own population and a defined territory under their rule.  They're not some nomadic tribe who doesn't draw boundaries and declare which territory is who's.  Okay, I'll admit some do, but for the most part the Native Americans had permanent settlements.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, many tribes were at least semi-nomadic. Even those that had permanent settlements didn't necessarily have defined territorial boundaries. john k (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is mine and that is yours, that's a defined territorial boundary. Sure there may be some 'gray' areas, but what nation doesn't have territorial disputes?  And even if they don't have a 'defined' territorial boundary, who's 'turf' the settlement is on is pretty obvious.  It's my settlement, my turf, cross the fence and you're on my land.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You all need to stop debating and arguing points of your original research, and stick to what reliable sources have to say on the matter. See WP:V. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating, I'm trying to understand the concept of state. Liu Tao (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:State which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal states and monopoly on legitimate force
(cur | prev) 02:38, 26 August 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (22,740 bytes) (Neither Delaware nor the United States has such a monopoly.) (undo)
 * I think your point might stand to be explicated a little further. Are you saying that, say, the United States does not have a monopoly on the use of force because the individual states also have the right to use force?  john k (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's half of it. The other half is that the several states have the right to use force but no monopoly (because the Federal Government may act) - and are indeed sovereign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with this, but this seems an argument against the whole idea of an article called sovereign state which only deals with "states as entities in international relations." I do think that the concept of a state in international relations needs an article, but I'm not sure that article should be called "sovereign state". john k (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * States of the united states do not have the right to use force outside of their borders except to repel invasions, the federal government has the exclusive right to use force in international disputes as per constitutional law.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your point? The question was about the use of force in general, not inside or outside borders.  If that doesn't work for you as an example of how fuzzy these things get, what about the German states between 1871 and 1918?  Bavaria, Saxony, and Württemberg not only kept their own armies, which would only be integrated with the Prussian/German army in wartime, but they also maintained their own diplomatic services, and continued to conduct diplomatic relations with non-German states independently of the Prussian/German government; So, even, did some of the smaller states - I believe Hesse had a diplomatic representative in St. Petersburg, for example.  Where does sovereignty rest there?  Bavaria in 1900 would seem to meet both the constitutive and declarative definitions of statehood, wouldn't it? john k (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bavaria also tried to make a seperate peace with the allies at the end of world war one, but was rejected by them.XavierGreen (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the definition as provided in my Government Textbook for states: A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority. 173.69.176.182 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would seem to exclude the member states of the European Union from being states. john k (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on how you look at it. I dunno how much power the EU has over their member states, but if the EU just governs on a series of treaties and laws passed unanimously by the members, then the member states would still be 'states' as they still retain their legislative powers.  If they've lost their legislative sovereignty and powers, then aye, that would mean that they are no longer 'states'.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * U.S. states and German states before 1918 also retain or retained legislative powers. The various European courts have the right to declare member state laws invalid under various treaties; that seems like a higher authority which must give its consent to individual member state laws.  This is no different from federal judicial review over U.S. state law; the European courts are enforcing treaties, while the U.S. federal courts are enforcing federal laws, treaties, and the U.S. constitution, but the mechanism is basically the same, and has similar effects.  Obviously, EU authority over member states is, in general, much weaker than U.S. federal authority over U.S. states, but I'm not sure the difference is really one of kind, rather than magnitude. john k (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then I guess in that case based upon this definition they're not states then. 'State' has multiple definitions, this is only one of the many there are.  They're mostly derivatives of each other, the main difference revolves around sovereignty.  Some definitions just says sovereign, some says full legislative powers, highest organ, monopoly, capability to enter relations, etc etc.  Personally, this is starting to get more and more complicated as we discuss, I think in the end we should just list the several definitions and cite them instead of picking one definition and try to explain it or something.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"The modern state" and Machiavelli
A recent addition to "The historical development of the state: The modern state" section has taken the proportion dealing with Machiavelli to more than half. Is this commensurate with his importance, or does WP:UNDUE apply? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the editor's recent contributions now seem to have thrown the article seriously off-balance. E.g., "a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives" (I know it's famous); "A policy made in African water sector could be made by either 1) A Christian Water MBA", etc. This seems to need serious pruning, but I don't feel confident to separate the good from the bad here. Offers, comments? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Blue-Haired Lawyer, that's a fix! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideology, legitimacy and the new state: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia
A recent edit assigns this work to the publisher Routledge. I've checked OCLC, the British Library Catalogue and Google Books, and all record Frank Cass as the publisher. What am I missing, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Listed as Routledge here and Psychology Press (an imprint of Taylor & Francis, which is owned by Routledge) here. Perhaps there was an older edition that was published by Frank Cass? Anyhow, I'm not sure whether to use Routledge or Psych. Press. What do you think? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt response. The first thing I noticed was the "look inside" feature of the edition marked "Routledge": the title page still has "Frank Cass". It's no big deal—in fact it's a bit picky—and I wouldn't bother with it except for the recent unsummarized edit. I'm just trying to keep correlated the ISBN in the WP article with the publisher named—after all the ISBN supplied will contain a "publisher" component. It's hard to keep up with the amalgamations (this month's parent group seems to be Informa) so, as a lazy editor, I tend to stick with the original publisher from whichever edition provided the reference. As the original contributor seems to have been using an edition from "Psychology Press", perhaps that would be the one to go with, i. e., "no change".
 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The historical development of the state
This section of the article looks like it was lifted from a high school essay and is written in an editorial tone, making weird references to specific types of firearms which have nothing to do with the political formation of a country. 05:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.66.136 (talk)

(sorry about that, didn't sign it right, apparently! --208.83.66.136 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the section, however, it is an important topic to address. I recommend putting the section back in--but with different content. I also recommend giving Liberal and Conservative Theories their own subsections under the State Function section. I think we can delete the Anarchy section--as this theory is more of a critique of states than a theory of its function. The Marxist section is good as it stands, but I recommend adding Marx's state progression model from Nomadic to Feudalistic to Modern to Socialistic to Communist. Finally, I changed the caption under the IWW jpeg. The poster was a socialist critique of capitalism--not an anarchist critique of it. --Lacarids (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be opposed to deleting the anarchy section - I think that that's absolutely relevant, and that it would be hard to draw a distinction between a "critique" and a "theory", especially in this case. (The section could certainly stand improvement, of course.) Also, just as an aside, in the case of groups like the IWW, there was not a strong distinction between "anarchist" and "socialist." From what I've seen in the scholarship, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in common usage anarchists were generally considered to be one type of socialists among others (Marxists, e.g.). The caption "anti-capitalist" is good, but it's certainly not opposed to "anarchist". Sindinero (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

restored prior lead
The previous lead: "In the social sciences, a state is a compulsory political institution that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory." was unsourced and placed too much emphasis on Weber's specific definition. aprock (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And again. aprock (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have several sources that claim that Weber's is the most commonly used definition of the term "state". Therefore this is the definition we should use in the lead. The other definitions should be mentioned in the section below, "Definitional issues". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most common is not the same thing as definitive. As the citations clearly indicate, there is no academic definition which is universally accepted.  Imposing particular academic jargon over common usage is undue. aprock (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From "The Origins of the State""... there apparently no consensus on what is to be a state. The most common ... is still that proposed by Max Weber ... this definition has always raised several problems ..."It's clear that Weber's particular definition is not universal, and problematic. By all means, do read through the citations. aprock (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aprock -- I would have to agree with Jrtayloriv here. While you are correct that "common is not the same thing as definitive" (there is no such thing as a definitive definition), I still don't see why we would not choose to use the most common definition here. What is your justification for using the particular definition of state that you have chosen? Do you have any sources that say that the OED's definition is a better choice, or that it is widely used in the literature on the State? If not, I don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily choose that definition over one that is much more widely used (with plenty of secondary sources saying this). Given the large number of sources that say that Weber's definition is the most widely accepted, I think the burden should be on you to justify using your definition. Mesoderm (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Weber definition is for a sovereign state. This article is meant to encompass other kinds of states as well. Federated states, for example, don't have a monopoly on the use of force but must share sovereignty with the federal state they belong to. The same would go for protectorates. The prior lead ("organized community living under one government") was sourced and is less prescriptive. The "Weber lead" takes a certain point of view is a given fact and implies that the other (ie that protectorates and federated states are states) is wrong. This is a debate we should show on the article not simply portray one version as a fact. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Primary States
Hi can anyone help with this enquiry and definition "primary states are states that arise on their own (through competition among chiefdoms), and not through contact with other state societies". Are they states? or chiefdom's? or the same thing? cannot find anything on wiki about it--Navops47 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional citation and resources to add
I'll be adding a more info to the article according to this source : anatomy of the state Murray N. Rothbard. If anyone want's to add more info reply to this postNight-changer (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

States and governments
The lead of "State (polity)" uses a definition based on the term "government." When one goes to see the article "Government" on Wikipedia, government is defined by the term "state." On Wikipedia, states are defined by governments and government by states, which is awkward, circular, and imprecise. How can we mend this? Wolfdog (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits about Grilli's opinions
I reverted edits reflecting opinions by someone named Grilli, which seem inappropriate for several reasons: Please discuss here before reverting again. Regards Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability. Why do we care about his opinions in this article?
 * Generality. His opinions seem to be specific to European nations.
 * Formatting. The formatting is incorrect.
 * Location. Wherever these edits might go, the front of the article is not the place.