Talk:Citizenship

message: TheAnd here is the proposal by the Convention on the Future of Europe:
:Article 8.1
:Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.  Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.
--Henrygb 12:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Loyalty to and support of democracy in regards to citizenship

message: I'm sorry, but the gist of the "Philosophy of Citizenship," which has a rich and scholarly history, should not be dedicated to a discussion comparing the two recent books "We the Media" with "The Wealth of Networks," neither of which are necessarily are about citizenship. (More appropriately, they are about the roles of mass media and computer networks.) This constitutes book spam. The unnecessarily long comparisons were deleted but reinstated in minutes.
Some subtopics (such as Citizenship (Canada)) have their own entries. Should they be linked back to this entry? -[User: Finn-Zoltan|FZ]]
:I think that would be a great idea. And this entry can link to them/ --Spinboy 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  other citizenship articles 

message: Sakharov was never made an Honorary US Citizen:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00089:@@@X
::— ©    Alex756   19:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sakharov citizenship status 

message: This article states that "The EU member states use a common passport design, burgundy coloured with the name of the member state, national seal and the title "European Union" or equivalent.". That is completely incorrect. Finnish passports are blue, German passports are red, Danish passports are also red, Lithuanian passports are green, Czech passports are pink. What is the source of the previous statement, because it should be rewritten. Páll 10:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are looking at old passports and not the current designs? --Spinboy 21:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Current german passports are burgandy.  --Spinboy 21:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Passport Common Design 

message: Is it true that in order to ger Icelandic citizenship you can go one time as a tourist and renew your tourist visa every year for 3 years, and in the 3rd year you become and Icelandic citizen?--84.228.246.173 20:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICELAND 

message: Can you be without citizenship or is it compulsery at birth based on nationalism?  Can you get a passport and thereby travel without being a citizen?
:It is certainly possible for a person to be without citizenship of any country. Many countries do not grant automatic citizenship to children born to non-citizens. Unless the country of which the parents are citizens grants citizenship based on heritage, the children will be non-citizens. I understand that there are Koreans who've been non-citizens in Japan for generations, and have lost their Korean citizenship. It's also possible to renounce one's citizenship. -Will Beback 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People without citizenship are called stateless persons. The UN now offers travel documents equivalent to passports to stateless persons. Many if not most live in refugee camps. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Can you not be a citizen?

message: The intro says, Some countries like Cuba and the United States of America forbid dual citizenship in the other country because of political tensions between the two nations..  Unless a cite can be shown that the U.S. "forbids" Cuban citizenship, I suggest that this be reworded.  Ditto a cite showing where Cuba "forbids" U.S. citizenship.  If such cites cannot be found, these assertions should be removed.  If such cites can be found, the meaning of the word "forbids" in this context should be clarified (e.g., what sanction is imposed upon a U.S. or Cuban citizen found to hold citizenship in the other country?). -- Boracay Bill 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question assertion seen in intro 

message: Should the link, Citizenship laws of the world, be a part of this article? --Kevinkor2 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep/Remove link to http://opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf 

message: This section would duplicate the similarly-named section in the wikipedia article on Nationality law if it matched that article, which it does not.  I propose deleting this out-of-sync section and replacing it with a link to that other wikipedia article. Barring objection, I will do this.  Objections? Comments? -- Boracay Bill 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the section; added links to similar material in the See also section. -- Boracay Bill 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Delete section ==Examples of nationality law (Citizenship) in specific countries== 

message: This article confuses the concepts of nationality and citizenship: glancing at the article on nationality I can see the same version of this article, albeit differently expressed. This confusion reflects the current position in the United Kingdom (see here). However, in democratic societies other than the UK, the status of citizenship embodies the basic constitutional concept that, by virtue of that status: (1) the individual has legally enforceable rights which are fundamental in the sense that they have a specially protected status in domestic law in relation to the public authorities of the state; (2) the individual has legal duties towards the state and the community; and (3) the state has legally enforceable duties towards the individual. With the exception of (2), NONE of these ideas (revolutionary as they may be to a British subject) are expressed in this article. Ravenseft (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with Nationality 

message: Hello everyone.  I would like to draw your attention to a proposed guideline on the use of the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' in the  template.  At present, the term 'nationality' is used to indicate both nationality and citizenship, and the purpose of the proposal is to put an end to that practice.  The 'nutshell' description of the guideline is as follows: 
"The terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' are sometimes used interchangeably, but differ in important ways. In most circumstances, citizenship is easier to determine than nationality, and should be given priority. Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, and only in cases where it is relevant to the article."
Your comments on the proposal's talk page would be appreciated! – User:01011000 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship and nationality guideline 

message: This article lacks information about other countries other than England,Wales and the U.S. especially in the schools section.
I put a bit of information on the Republic of Ireland but there needs to be information on other countries. It appears really one sided.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.137.69 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section should probably be moved to the citizenship education article. Nurg (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School section all about UK 

message: The history section would need something on modern development, notably in relation to the French Revolution. 83.199.237.46 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern history 

message: Does a passport (or, where obtainable, a national ID card) actually prove a persons citizenship? For instance, does a court recognize it as such? And what about people without passports? I doubt that a bith certificate alone really proves citizenship since there is no photo on such certificates. 86.56.36.194 (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which document(s) prove the citizenship of a person? 

message: Would be interesting to know what exactly a Honorary citizenship means in different countries. I can only see that in Ireland it is regarded as full citizenship but what about the other countries?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.152.54 (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe honorary citizenship should be a separate article? My sense is honorary citizenship can help add color to the topic of citizenship but it's sort of a sideline issue; I bet it not only varies in each country, but varies according to each circumstance. It's more like a medal or an honor as opposed to having something real to say about citizenship. What about adding an article Citizenship in Ireland?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the term honorary tends to mean that one would be a citizen just in name. It seems to be that in the US. Honorary citizens would have neither the full obligations and privileges of a citizen. Of course that would suggest Che was a full citizen of Cuba, as he renounced his citizenship along with its obligations. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorary citizenship

message: Currently it reads: Citizenship is the state of being a citizen of a particular social, political, or national community. Wondering if I might change it to this: Citizenship is the state of being an officially recognized legal member of a particular social, political, or national community. What do others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: Under the "National citizenship" section, we could use a link to List of citizenships by country. That article doesn't exist (yet), but could include links to Citizenship in the United States,  Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, Canadian citizenship, Citizen of Malaysia, etc.
Facts707 (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The various country-specific articles could also use standard naming, e.g. either "Citizen of X" or "Citizenship in X". Facts707 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use a link to [[List of citizenships by country]] 

message: I have restored 2 sections deleted with no reason given, a section on "Commonwealth citizenship" (17 April 2009) and one on "European Union (EU) citizenship" (deleted 24 August 2010 ). - 220.101 talk\Contribs 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Deletions restored 

message: Swami Vivekananda has done a whole set of talks and essays on Nationality and the role of the people. Is this not citizenship?
There are multiple derivative works about the Awakened Citizen based upon his teachings. Can these be included within this section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidakaka (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification required 

message: In my opinion citizenship should include name change. So that's where I come in I think we should have right to change our names for work purposes. Because if someone has the same first name as you the names will refer to both of you, but if you use a different name like your middle for an instance your coworkers wont get confused(if your middle name is legal of course).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1820:2DF0:309C:6D73:261:CF54 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship on name change 

message: This edit added a section on Israel, supported by a source with heavy WP:POV. Some of the language in the addition, particlularly the terms uniquely and contortions, seem to echo the POV in the cited source. Here, I have toned this down. The U.S. also distinguishes nationality from citizenship, British nationality law defines six classes of British national, among which "British citizen" is one class (having the right of abode in the United Kingdom, along with some "British subjects"). Similarly, in the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, the status of national without household registration applies to people who have Republic of China nationality, but do not have an automatic entitlement to enter or reside in the Taiwan Area, and do not qualify for civic rights and duties there. Under the nationality laws of Mexico, Colombia, and some other Latin American countries, nationals do not become citizens until they turn 18. Israeli law distinguishes nationality from citizenship. The reasons behind the differentiation may differ in the cases, but exploration of the details of that ought to be done in a more detailed article rather than here (it is detailed to some extent in the Nationality article) . The term Contortions ought simply to be avoided here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: I've removed from the lead a one-sentence para reading: The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. This has been in the lead since this November 2019 edit. When I read that sentence, it left me wondering what it was trying to tell me. I couldn't find the cited source, but I found a later edition; see . That repeats what was inserted here and explains it a bit. I don't think any of that is useful in the article lead except, perhaps, the mention in that source that recognition as a citizen generally includes recognition of particular civil, social, and political rights. Comments? Disagreement? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly thank you for your efforts. Well I do agree that the sentance is odd in the context of the rest of the lead text. But I would argue that this is only the case since the rest of the lead talks about citizenship only as in the sense of having a membership to a country (see "nationality"), thus about the significance of citizenship in international law to identifiy nationals and regulate migration, travel and labour. Thats fine in it self. But for me it needs to flash out also the internal dimension of citizenship as a title for civil, political and social rights. So I wonder if the whole article is too narrow or if there is a distinction to another article to be made, say to for example voting rights. In my opinion the international dimension is an issue of human rights (humanism) and the internal dimension an issue of civil rights (liberalism), but thats my interpretation and not the main issue now. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of lead content 

message: I am replacing a section "Criticism of citizenship education" (which belongs on an article about "citizenship education", not here) with a section explaining the main criticism of citizenship itself. I have been reverted multiple times by User:Debresser, who has yet to provide any reason for the revert. I do not know how Debresser expects me to address whatever their concern is with this edit when they won't say why they oppose it. (t · c) buidhe 16:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start by posting here not after you were reverted three times, but after the first time, as you should per WP:EDIT WAR and WP:BRD. You are that close to being blocked for edit warring. Even if you don't understand what precisely it is that I disagree with, you surely must have understood that you made a major edit that is contested. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not at all close to being blocked for edit warring and have not breached 3RR. I am asking you for the third time to explain why you oppose this edit. This is not optional, it is required by the policies you cite. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, you are. Edit warring is not only 3RR violations. Do you even read policies and guidelines? That is a serious mistake! Debresser (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  After taking a step back, I have no problem with your edit. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: WP:FIRSTSENTENCE starts off as follows: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."\
The lead sentence of this articlecurrently reads: "Citizenship is the status of a person recognized under the law of a country of belonging to thereof. In international law it is membership to a sovereign state (a country)."
Seeing a disconnect here, I have here WP:BOLDly revised the lead sentence to read: "'Citizenship; is a relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection.
The previously cited source is 70 pages long. The cite did not specify a page number and I could not quickly locate the part providing specific support there. I've removed that cite, but mention of that source should possibly be added back into the article, perhaps in a body section or as a Further reading item.
Also, perhaps this bold edit needs further discussion here. 
In the spirit of WP:BRD, I am here discussing this edit by @ which reverted the bold edit explained above without comment or explanation. I stand by my assertion that the current version needs improvement; the phrase, " a person recognized under the law of a country of belonging to thereof" is particularly clumsy. Barring further discussion, I intend to restore the version from the reverted edit. I'm open to better wording from other editors, though. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold edit to the lead sentence 

message: please stop adding nonsense to this article. It is unnecessary and disruptive. It does not help build an encyclopedia. You had made like 3 revert in this article to your own nonsense. Edit wars are not games. You will be reported for edit warring if you continue.
 Welcome to Wikipedia! Please do not remove content without an explanation. I know the content you were blanking were the categories, but you didn’t give me a reason why on the edit summary. So please remember, when your removing contents from pages, please make sure to leave an edit summary. Thank you and happy editing! Kaseng55 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing on this article by two anonymous user 

message: This edit, reverting a change in the lead sentence, caught my eye. I'm just airing passing thoughts which struck me upon seeing the first part of that change and revert. This may or may not be useful.
The lead sentence defines what the article is about, and such a big change back and forth suggests a big deal.
:Citizenship is the status of being a member of a political state
vs.
:Citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a state
Those are not even close to being the same thing.
Cannot a political state unilaterally designate whomever it desires as citizens, forcing them into that relationship without regard to individual choice? Cannot a political state arbitrarily assign responsibilities of citizenship to persons so designated without regard to individual choice and, possibly, without their knowledge (consider jus-sanguinis citizenship; and the requirement that some citizens in some states perform compulsory military or other state service -- I think I've seen some specific warnings about this from the US State Dept regarding some other countries). As I understand it, such things do happen in real life from time to time.
It seems to me that citizenship as membership status in a political state (and possible consequences) deserve some coverage in the article.
Also, the article has a section about (some) determining factors, which reads like a list of required qualifications needed to attain a sought-after goal, with the status of citizen being "granted". As I've said above, it seems to me that unwanted classification as citizen can also be thrust upon a person, with undesired consequences.
Also, having given coverage to qualifications for acquisition of citizenship, it seems to me that the article should also give coverage to expiation (voluntary and involuntary).
Or perhaps I've just been looking at watchlist appearances for too long a stretch this morning. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Citizenship? 

message: Cabnet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.161.84.70 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social studies