Talk:Second-class citizen

message: ...religious persons of some or all faiths or spiritual movements (eg. Falun Gong) in communist nations (eg, China, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union and its satellite nations during much of the 20th century).
Could you elaborate on them being "second class citizen"? At least in Poland, being religious didn't strip anyone of their rights, and there wasn't even a list of who is "religious" and who isn't to run any sort of discrimination. The fights between the government and the official structures of the churches were a completely different matter, but nobody did anything against the individual "religious people", even in the Stalinist times.
While I speak here mostly about the People's Republic of Poland, because that's what I know best, it applies at least to other Central European Communist countries, and to some extend probably to the rest of the world. (It might have possibly been different in further away places like PRC or Albania) Taw 13:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious persons

message: I think listing alleged current and historical examples is great; I added a couple myself. We should remember that the list is a not complete, and is a list of allegations. As often second-class citizenship cannot be objectively proven, inclusion on the list is simply due to the fact that the allegation can be plausibly made. As for Hong Kong residents, whether life is better or worse under the PRC versus British rule is irrelevant. Ngchen 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general note 

message: Children are generally treated as second class citizens as well. By law, I have the right to restrict where my child goes, what my child sees, dictate how he or she dresses, and hit, shame, or otherwise punish my child as I see fit. The typical response to a statement such as this is generally met with "that's different, they are kids." However, it used to be said "that's different, they are just n*****s" or "that's different, they are just women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemama03 (talk • contribs) 
:Children don't belong on this list; adults are their custodians until they grow into competency (for lack of a better word offhand), and we don't allow children to vote, drive, buy alcohol or tobacco, view pornography, or stay out all hours for a reason. (Would the person who brought this up care to explain how this would be discrimination or prejudice, or how they'd otherwise have it?) Zephyrad 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Children are not permanently second-class citizens. True, Children are deprived of rights for reasons that can be extended to many adults. However, children will grow older and change their status by no virtue other than their age. Second-class citizens may not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of second-class citizen does not require permanence. Otherwise this would exclude not just children, but also any of the other categories that relate to immigration status, if they will be later eligible for full citizenship. So unless you want to exclude them as well, this criterion does not remove children from the category of second-class citizen. 129.2.106.82 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

text: You are assuming that the socially constructed age of majority is the intrinsically correct one. There is no justification for that. By that logic, any other oppressed class in history was never second-class citizens, using your epistemology, because the socially constructed criteria for being considered competent were not met by those people. Were women in 1800 in the US or today in Saudi Arabia also incompetent? How do you know 15-year-olds are really incompetent? 129.2.106.82 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: True, children are minors, and as such they may not be able to physically or emotionally handle motor vehicles, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or sexuality, which is why there are laws restricting purchase and participation. However, there have been signs that youth are indeed second-class citizens, ranging from remarks of how children are so "cute" when they do something to outright disgusting comments; i.e. "teenagers are disgusting subhuman slobs and every one of them needs to be rounded up and shot". Calling someone a slob or subhuman gives creedence that they are second-class citizens, or should be designated as such. USN1977 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Children? 

message: I removed the reference to "Blacks in Cuba" because that's all it said. "Blacks in Cuba". Three words, no supporting statement explaining how blacks were second class citizens and what makes it unique enouigh to be listed here. In the Cuba article the most significant statement regarding race relations seemed to suggest that there is relatively litle racial tension in Cuba. I'd be happy to see it come back if someone is willing to elaborate further. --Gantlord 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until there's precedent for EVERY reference in this Wiki entry having equally voluminous "supporting statements", it isn't necessary. Regards confirmation that racism in Cuba is alive and well -- the internet is at your disposal. Start with realcuba.com.--Mike18xx 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks in Cuba 

message: How about we drop the list? Perfect, obvious POV magnet. They make perfect sense when you first start a page (actually I may have started this one) but they invariably cause headaches as much as imparting neutral info. Marskell 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I started it (under another ID) and you added things I missed; I thought the initial article we did was perfectly fine, and didn't check back for months. Ayeayeaye. I couldn't believe the rash of needless edits (especially with punctuation), the move (though the best parts of both ours and the duplicate article were kept), the list entries put in, tweaked, and taken out, and the POV back and forth. Wow. — I say prune the list to a few "notable examples" as we had; African-Americans before desegregation, apartheid in South Africa, dissidents in Soviet Europe, India's native population under the British, Kurds and Shiites under Saddam Hussein. Maybe one other. Illegal immigrants also don't belong on the list; they are not native-born and are not citizens, and are treated as they are because they broke the laws of two countries, whatever their other circumstances. Zephyrad 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By thsi logic, we can add any alien in any country because they are all tretaed unequally by having no voting right etc., but that would be patently absurd. Pecher Talk 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest removal 

message: Robin Hood 1212 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly states that the discrimination comes from the government. Don't claim you are blind to the heading "second-class".--Marielleh 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will add Arabs in Israel 

message: Let's just get rid of the bloody list. Really. It would be much easier. I started out on the Wiki thinking lists make sense and have since decided they almost always do more harm than good. Define it, leave it. Marskell 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Marielleh 00:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not; without a standard of measure, there is the risk of any member of any minority (relative to whatever majority) being conveniently labelled as such, or even seeking such labelling. The restored list included historical examples; all the furor (not to mention whining, sorry) appears to be about attempts to shoehorn present-day possible or would-be examples into the list. There is a difference between being shut out of the broader culture, and refusing to assimilate into it. To follow the logic presented here, if the list should be deleted since it might hurt someone's feelings, either being left in or left out, why not just delete the whole blessed article, and spare everyone?! Zephyrad 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, remove list 

message: Is it worth noting that anyone in Japan not of Japanese decent is treated as a second class citizen? This article already lists Burakumin as second class citizens, but I think its also true for anyone foreign living in Japan as well as people of foreign decent. Tyrane 14:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the scope of the article, I think the emphasis should be upon political mistreatment. Insofar as I am aware, the Japanese government does not stymie non-Japanese-native citizens with oppressive or insulting edicts -- even if the bathhouses are prone to close their doors to gaijin.--Mike18xx 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone of foreign decent in Japan 

message: A certain poster insists on replacing a passage detailing the former second-class status of Native Americans and Asians in the United States, with a passage that ignores this - and IMO is overlong and adds nothing to the article. The outside references he makes mention of in his latest comment are just that - OUTSIDE references, that support the point made in the passage he continues to tamper with. This poster also displays poor attitude and judgment in insisting on this needless change, and his comments on the same. I see from this poster's user and user-talk pages that he has a history of such poor judgment. I will not continue to debate with that person. His addition is not an addition; it is a subtraction, and so are his comments. Zephyrad 14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A certain poster (*cough*, named Zephyrad, *cough*) wishes to excise every other nation in North and South America except the US. Look: I could run on ALL DAY regarding Brazil's or Canada's treatment of its natives, continuing right up to this very present moment....but, I see you're hustling your US-bashing heinie out the door....so, hasta la vista, baby!--Mike18xx 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "up to approximately the mid-20th century" 

message: They are 2nd class citizen in their own country of birth, with STATELESS stamped onto their Brunei issued passport. --Pehin Zunaidi 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunei born Chinese 

message: I notice that one phenomenon of second-class citizenry is when secret societies, political parties or religions gain enough power, the people who don't belong will de facto become second-class citizens. Senator Kennedy was a virtual second-class citizen until he was elected President. During the affaire des fiches in France, all second-class citizens were put in a massive government dossier in order to ensure that they would not reverse the dominant separation regime. The Catholic-Protestant divide in Northern Ireland and historic Netherlands is a notable example. Similar scenarios have received the name of apartheid. ADM (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret societies, political parties and religions

message: There is already a quite extensive article about Suffrage, which lists most exclusions of citizens from vote, thus the characteristics of people who were/are legally (and objectively) "second-class citizens":
*1 Types of suffrage
*1.1 Universal suffrage
*1.2 Women's suffrage
*1.3 Equal suffrage
*1.4 Census suffrage
*1.5 Compulsory suffrage
*2 Forms of exclusion from suffrage
*2.1 Religion
*2.2 Wealth, tax class, social class
*2.3 Knowledge
*2.4 Race
*2.5 Age
*2.6 Criminality
*2.7 Residency
*2.8 Nationality
*2.9 Naturalization
*2.10 Function
--Pylambert (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Second-class citizen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509044128/http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_03/03_CbC_eng/LVA-CbC-III-2008-2-ENG.pdf to http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_03/03_CbC_eng/LVA-CbC-III-2008-2-ENG.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I thought the Dalits in Nepal, Bhutan and India currently were good examples of what a Second-class citizen is.  Anyone know what it was removed and could it be put back in historical examples of second class citizen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Dalits in Nepal and Bhutan? 

message: Dropouts have been the subject of ridicule for years. Mass media has drummed into everyone that "if you drop out, you will turn into an idiot and everyone will shun you". Sounds a lot like treating them as second-class citizens. USN1977 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic pedigree 

message: I am planning on editing this article by explaining how the concept of a second-class citizen has changed over time and providing more historical examples of second-class citizens. See my user page (User: Pouchwarm) for more information. Pouchwarm (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision Plan