Talk:Nationality

message: The current article gives a legal definition of the word "nationality", then goes on to give something the author(s) called an "alternate usage". Basically, we have multiple accepted meanings for a word. I don't think there is any rational way in which we could state that one is the "default" and the other is "alternalte". 
I believe the article should be reshaped to reflect the fact that most of the article deals with the usage of the word nationality in the field of law alone. The original meaning of the word in English, a meaning that is still in usage in various other fields (social science and philosophy) certainly isn't just an "alternate" phenomenon. -- Mathieugp 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a consistent problem where a word has multiple meanings. This page was originally drafted to fit into the legal classification and the secondary usage was later added. As and when those interested in sociology, philosophy, and politics write their own pages, we can disambiguate between all the specialised meanings. Until then, we have this unsatisfactory situation which applies on hundreds of other pages. You could help by writing another page and begin the disambiguation process. David91 09:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see we agree on the nature of the problem. I guess you are right: this is not really an issue of the organization of the article. I would certainly like to start the disambiguation process, unfortunately, my "field" (if I have one) is history. That's why I noted the different uses of the word at different points in time. That being said, my "expertise" is neither in law, politics, sociology nor philosophy. I am just a generalist who likes to complain a lot. ;-) -- Mathieugp 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree: complaining is good therapy rather than bottling it all up and getting frustrated. History of nationality sounds interesting, showing how nationalism was used to unify disparate groups of people during nation-building. David91 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with current article's organization 

message: ::You're right, there is a small sticking point; quite how we define "nation" also directly affects what we see as "national", "nationality" and even "native" as these are all derivatives of the same source. I think that Australia's government encourages people of various backgrounds to unite as a single nation (no quotations here, I meant nation), bringing with them all their attributes from life in other countries. There is no harm in that, this is why the USA is so culturally and ethnicly diverse with millions identifying as proud Americans. If you, Lejon, have decided to remain in Australia, maybe a few generations down the line, after our time, one of your descendants will find himself from a long line of people originating from Australia but with an origin not only in English and Irish, but whatever else will bond with future offsprings to produce tomorrows people. As you rightfully say, people from 150 countries means a lot more than 150 cultures. The number is sure to be in its thousands as most countries are multi-ethnic anyhow. But I do fully accept that when ones life develops in a country, s/he has the right to call her/himself by that national name even if s/he never applies for legal status of any kind. All I can say at this stage regading nationality is that the best way not to offend people and to be appreciated is to accept them as they wish to be seen: of course, I don't accuse you of having done opposite!! People identify by a multitude of national names most of which do not have nation states. There are countless reasons for this: they may be descendants of earlier tribes who are reducing in number as a result of assimilation of bigger more powerful neighbouring nations, or they may be big enough in number but unfortunate not to be included in the constitutions of the countries occupying their homeland (ie. fully occupied and not forming a part of the country), or all 100% of the named nation might live as a diaspora accross the entire globe as a result of earlier events: this is how the Jews were for so long before Israel was craeted, and is today still the case for the Roma (whose postulated homeland, modern India, does not list them as a principle nationality). Anyhow, did I really say that Greece was not a state? I promise you that I never meant that! How that came about I don't know but I will read back; I know Greece is independent! EU since 1981, Nato since before, monarchy overthrown in 1973/74 and republic ever since! My father's home town in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bitola) is less than 10 kilometres from the Greek border! I should have known Greece is no longer occupied by Ottomans! :-) Evlekis 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent Australia

message: Nationality by Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia :
nationality, in political theory, the quality of belonging to a nation, in the sense of a group united by various strong ties. Among the usual ties are membership in the same general community, common customs, culture, tradition, history, and language. While no one of these factors is essential, some must be present for cohesion to be strong enough to justify the term nationality. Used in this sense, nationality does not necessarily denote membership within a specific political state. There are many examples of nations divided between several states and of states composed of several nations and parts of nations. Thus not all Albanians live in Albania, and, on the other hand, Switzerland has citizens whose native languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh. In political theory the belief that a state should be identical with a nation is called the "principle of nationalities," or, more commonly, "self-determination." This view is a typical expression of nationalism; it was advanced partly as a means of solving the problem of the national minority after World War I. Nationality in its specific legal sense is a very different concept; it is attachment to a state by a tie of allegiance. Nationals in this sense are fundamentally distinguished from aliens (see alien) and in most, but not all, countries are identical with citizens. Nationality gives the state the right to impose certain duties, especially military service. Some states will punish their nationals for crimes wherever committed; the United States, however, punishes only those crimes, except treason, that are committed within American territorial jurisdiction. States may tax the income and other assets of their nationals regardless of whether they reside abroad. The national owes duties to his government but is also entitled to diplomatic protection when in a foreign country. Such protection includes the assistance of consular officials when the national is accused of crime and the offering of refuge in emergencies. In many instances certain persons, particularly those who have undergone naturalization, will be regarded as nationals by two states at once. Such problems of dual nationality have been a frequent cause of international diplomatic disputes.
See P. Weis, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (1956); B. Akzin, States and Nations (1966); C. Joseph, Nationality and Diplomatic Protection (1969).
--GillesV 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is highly flawed in pretending that the word "nationality" exclusively or even predominantly means "citizenship" or is a reference to which sovereign state one is a member of. Sure, a government official might insist on legal British nationality monopolizing the meaning of the word, but most people in, say, Scotland, will tell you that their nationality is Scottish or Scottish and British. No one meaning is correct with the other wrong, since both are used, but the article as it stands is simply leading people astray. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  one suggestion! 

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! –  SJL 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor's concerns are correct, even if the comment is ten years old. A quick glance through the article highlights some glaring mistakes caused by trying to pretend that nationality and citizenship always mean the same. Some of the citations used have been mis-interpretated and as such have been used incorrectly to try to justify an incorrect statement. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship and nationality guideline 

message: To help attempt to locate sources, I replicate the section removed by Dougweller below:
 Mark Hurd (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed for lack of sources 

message: If I understand the paragraph on the UDHR uses the word nationality in the citizenship sense. If this is the case it should be specified, particularly as in the preceding sentence it's used in the nation sense.
65.95.12.188 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need reliable sources on that. Nationality, especially in the context of 1948, was not universally regarded as the same as citizenship and for example in the USSR a great many nationalities were formally recognised even all were citizens of the USSR - indeed Ukraine and Byelorussia as it then was were members of the UN even though they were constituent parts of the USSR.--AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Univ. Declaration of Human Rights ambiguous 

message: I have reverted this] edit because in Wikipedia we don't change sourced text for any reason, including for the convenience of making it fit an article's title. The body of the article needs to reflect the title and if it doesn't, then the article needs to be expanded to reflect the title. Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercy11, 24.130.149.55's comment to the last revert is valid, I'm therefore undoing your edits. If the cited text does not comply with consensus we can dispense with it altogether, we're also allowed to remove irrelevant passages in that text and change it to comply with copyright laws. If you so strongly feel that the body of the article needs to reflect the title, then you are welcome to expand it to reflect the title. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Describe the people who live in Montana there nationalities traditions and etc.
community ..... what is community  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.152.239 (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  montana 

message: Is here considered the citizenship of a person or his nationality (nation, nazi), as an ethnos or an ethnic group? More like citizenship... The article more reveals the issue of statehood or of citizenship, not nationality.  --Cherusk (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship or nationality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nationality. 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/20141226230108/http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf to http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.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) 13:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I happened to look at this article today and was struck by its incompleteness. I added an entry for the United States in the Americas table, but there I was struck by the table constraints -- particularly the Women able to confer nationality on spouses column; for the U.S., neither men not women are able to confer nationality on spouses. It looks like this article needs work. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article incomplete. Table formats need work. 

message: Lead sentence is "Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law...." Yes, but nationality is so much more, like a person's cultural identity. When someone says "I'm Dutch" they don't usually mean "I am entitled, in international law, to certain privileges and immunities granted to me by the Kingdom of the Netherlands." They mean "I'm from the Netherlands." This article should be expanded to reflect the broader use of the term. Thoughts? mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence of the lead expresses, I think, what you have in  mind: "Nationality is also employed as a term for national identity". Debresser (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is a big problem. But I see the simplest solution as changing some article titles rather than massively expanding this article. See Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023.  —Michael Z. 21:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too narrow 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National identity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress