Talk:Citizenship

Loyalty to and support of democracy in regards to citizenship

TheAnd here is the proposal by the Convention on the Future of Europe[1]:

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)

other citizenship articles

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)

Sakharov citizenship status

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)

EU Passport Common Design

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)

Perhaps you are looking at old passports and not the current designs? --Spinboy 21:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Current german passports are burgandy. [2] --Spinboy 21:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The European Union passport format and design are a result of consensus, of "recommendation" in Euro-legal terms, not directive: Resolutions of 23 June 1981, 30 June 1982, 14 July 1986 and 10 July 1995 concerning the introduction of a passport of uniform pattern, OJEC, 19 Sept. 1981, C 241, p. 1; 16 July 1982, C 179, p. 1; 14 July 1986, C 185, p. 1; 4 Aug. 1995, C 200, p. 1. --Andy, 13:53, 23 Mar 2006 (UTC)

ICELAND

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)
no that is complete rubbish--Lucy-marie 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Citizen/Subject?

In the definition of Citizenship it says explicitly that some people are subjects rather than citizens. At the same time, a wider implicit definition, possibly "a citizen is someone who holds a passport" is used in some pages in wikipedia.

In the page on e.g. Saudi Arabia some people are called citizens, but they have no (real) rights to political participation, therefore in the narrow sense they should be called "subjects".

I can imagine that other people hold similar views about other countries' nationals. Maybe the word citizen is not neutral, and may have to be removed from descriptions of various' countries nationals.

Any thoughts?

FroS

Can you not be a citizen?

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)

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)

Legal Residence

Hi all, sorry for bothering. I notice the phrase "legal residence" across most articles, but it is not defined. Does it mean ANY legal stay in the country? Does that also mean studying in the country constitutes legal residence? Thanks.

Confusion about nationality and citizenship

"Nationality most often derives from place of birth (i.e. jus soli) and, in some cases, ethnicity (i.e. jus sanguinis). Citizenship derives from a legal relationship with a state. Nationality can be lost, as in denaturalization, and gained, as in naturalization."

This text is very confusing. I suppose the reason is that the concept of "nationality" in the UK and USA is quite different than in the rest of the world. In most other countries than the two mentioned "nationality" is something acquired by birth and descent, and is roughly equivalent to ethnicity, while citizenship is a set of legal rights the individual acquires from a state. Thus, nationality can not be lost and gained, but citizenship can. Nationality can in some cases be changed by the individual in a process of voluntary or involuntary assimilation to another nation (usually in young age). Columbo

Agree. Moreover, the fact is that citizenship is more often based on "jus sanguinis" principle ("jus soli" is applied only if the child would become stateless otherwise) while "jus soli" is only used in some states of American continent. Murmillo 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the fact that this article is UK and USA biased. But in international law, nationality is also a legal relationship with a state, and is never used to define ethnicity. And it can be lost and gained. And it is also a right, according to UDHR.

Most of this article is off topic. Nationality laws should not be used in this article but in the eponymous article. And the fact that in some countries minors and women are not full citizens should be included here. Frenchl (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The difference between "national" and "citizen" is confused at an international level see for example [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. The confusion arises to be political expediency. A state is given the right to decide on who will be a citizen, so the term "national" is used by agencies like unhcr when discussing statelessness. Yet when used in this manner the term "national" becomes a legal fiction, because states still have the right to refuse entry of such people. So it is still a de facto citizenship that is being discussed despite the term "national" being used. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Commonwealth Citizenship

Did some editing here, especially with regards to erroneous claims made pertaining to Canada and tried to make the section sound less POV; the section read like it was written by Anglophiles and monarchists. I will look into this to look into this as many of the claims in said section sound rather suspect. The idea of "Commonwealth Citizenship" having any practical meaning to citizens of most member states of the Commonwealth is more or less a pipe-dream. dAS TRU

Question assertion seen in intro

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)

Removed this assertion -- Boracay Bill 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)''

Keep/Remove link to http://opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf

Should the link, Citizenship laws of the world, be a part of this article? --Kevinkor2 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I believe it is a reliable source that lists the effect of citizen laws around the world. --Kevinkor2 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete section ==Examples of nationality law (Citizenship) in specific countries==

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)

Deleted the section; added links to similar material in the See also section. -- Boracay Bill 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with Nationality

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)

Citizenship and nationality guideline

Hello everyone. I would like to draw your attention to a proposed guideline on the use of the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' in the {{Infobox Person}} 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)

School section all about UK

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)

That section should probably be moved to the citizenship education article. Nurg (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern history

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)

Major confusion

I took a legal course this semester, and we covered nationality. This article's heading is leaving other view points out, as nationality CAN be acquired through not only place of birth, parentage, ethnicity/religion, but also by naturalization. Citizenship is just the political status. I think it should be edited to take this part into account. After I find my source, I will add it in. Discuss please. Note: wikipedia policies state that silence means consent --Anectdotallypresent (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead does mention citizenship by naturalization. The article currently links to the Naturalization article, which treats that subject in some detail. My initial rreaction was that much more than that is probably not useful here. The article has a section on Honorary citizenship, however. Perhaps that section should be made a subsection of a new section on Acquisition of citizenship, with subsections added on Birthright citizenship (which currently, and possibly incorrectly, redirects to Jus soli), Native-born citizenship, Natural-born citizenship and Citizenship by naturalization. Whatever is done, care needs to be taken to avoid introducing country-specific information into this article without identifying that information as country-specific. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations define naturalization as acquisition of nationality, not citizenship. Frenchl (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, bloviating off the top of my head here, care needs to be taken to avoid presenting the UN as an arbiter of such matters. Sovereign nations decide such matters for themselves. In doing so, they may or may not take into account expressions of views from intergovernmental organizations such as the UN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Which document(s) prove the citizenship of a person?

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)

In the U.S., a birth certificate is NOT proof of citizenship because the U.S. is not a "jus soli" country, but a hybrid country (14th Amendment: "...born ... in the U.S. AND subject to the jurisdiction" meaning at least one citizen parent), nor do the documents identify the person as a citizen (or the citizenship of his parents). Even a child of a diplomat (where U.S. citizenship would NEVER be granted) gets a birth certificate no different in form than that of a citizen. As for passports, as they are supposed to be issued only to a country's citizens, then in that sense, yes they do prove citizenship; that is their purpose. However, the integrity of such depends on the validation and verification of the application to get the document. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Where's American citizenship?

We've got EU citizenship; where's American citizenship? And, as an American, let me add that Americans don't think much about this topic whatsoever, so sadly I think it's perfectly understandable that there isn't any mention of "citizenship in America".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No supranational entity named "America" exists. Hence, no citizenship in such a nonexistent entity is possible. Hence, there is no need for this article to address that topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

By America, in this context, I meant "United States".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Try Nationality law and United States nationality lawThe . I've added a {{for}} at the top of the article mentioning that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, very helpful, thanks for the reference. I thought there weren't any articles whatsoever. So I was surprised to see them. I still think there's something missing overall regarding the US. There's an article called Birthright citizenship in the United States of America (the article topic excludes naturalized citizens) and United States nationality law. But wondering what you think -- shouldn't there be an article called "Citizenship in the United States"? My thinking is it would include both (1) birthright and (2) naturalized citizens. It would be a main article, and a sub-articles would be "Birthright Citizenship in the US" and "Nationality Law in the US". So, the logical tree would be something like this:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citizenship (all kinds; EU; supranational, etc)
  • Citizenship in the EU
  • Citizenship in the US (birthright & naturalized) <--PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE
    • Birthright citizenship in the US (focus on this type)
    • Nationality Law in the US (focus is more on the laws regarding citizenship)

Wondering what you think; I'm interested in putting in a section of writers critical of Americans for not being citizens, and I have no idea which section it should go it.

I don't understand how such an article would differ from the present United States nationality law article, except for possibly excluding U.S. nationals who are not U.S. citizens (and I can't think of a reason to make such an exclusion; United States citizenship is currently a redirect to United States nationality law). Re "nationality" vs. "citizenship" in article naming, some of the articles linked from the Nationality law article and categorized in Category:Nationality law are named using "Citizenship" and others are named using "Nationality law".

Re information on writers (and/or other categories of persons) who are critical of Americans for not being citizens (and I'm not sure who these non-citizen Americans might be—see American ethnicity). I get the feeling, though, that such information might belong in the American nationalism article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see what you're saying about how there are essentially two different names at work here– "citizenship" and "nationality law". They seem to me to be two different subjects -- citizenship is the relation between a person and the state; nationality law is rules about this relationship. But I guess what's happened, up to now, is that both terms have been used, with some overlap, and maybe it's too late to try to readjust them now? And then there's the additional problem in the US about "birthright" vs "naturalized" citizenship. So, my thinking at this point is that an additional article solves it structurally.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Citizenship (all kinds; EU; supranational, etc)
  • Citizenship in the EU
  • Citizenship in the US <--PROPOSED ARTICLE (incl. birthright & naturalized)
    • Birthright citizenship in the US
    • Nationality Law in the US

Some academics suggest US "citizenship" is essentially meaningless in terms of political participation and responsibilities. That Americans are consumers, workers, investors, not real citizens, since they don't follow politics, often don't vote, avoid jury duty. The Greek and Roman conception of "citizen" was considerably different. Today, US citizenship is more of a legal relationship with rights of belonging. I'll probably create an article called "Citizenship in the United States", and fix links afterwards, but in a few days or so, perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between U.S. nationals and U.S. citizens 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See United States nationality law#Nationals who are not citizens. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Honorary citizenship

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)

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)

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)

Lead sentence

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)

Could use a link to List of citizenships by country

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)

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)

2 Deletions restored

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)

Clarification required

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)

Citizenship on name change

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)

Israel

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)

I'm revisiting this after this edit. The edit summary there says ‎Israel: Put back edit … Quoting the prime minister of the country and rulings of the supreme-court – All with relevant citations.. Re uniquely and the sentence about contortions, which I am re-removing (about which see above), the quotes are from this source -- an opinion article by someone named Sheldon Richman. I notice that the phrase "distinguishes citizenship from nationality" is linked in that article to this other article titled Understanding Israel’s deception regarding citizenship vs. Jewish nationality". I don't think that it is appropriate to get into clashing POVs about this in this article on the topic of citizenship in general, though they probably ought to be covered with attention to WP:DUE in the Israeli citizenship law article, which I am adding as a {{main article}} for this section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Limits of citizenship in lead

The following was taken out of the lead after being recently added by User:Enthusiast01 and edited by me to fit the lead, but taken out for the reasons of not being lead material and not in the article to be summary of.

"Citizenship though does not guarantee laws that create legal equality or social equality among citizens. Only with the 20th century legal and civil rights, such as equal voting rights, have been gained for women or other groups of citizens, with issues of discrimination persisting. States have legislated anti-discrimination laws and policies to a varying degree, despite declarations such as the universal human rights."

But I argue that it is all over the article, especially in the history parts. Secondly it is important to establish the differences (like to nationality) and limitations of citizenship. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who twice removed the addition from the lead, I stand by the reasons I provided in the edit summary: 1. examples are almost always not lead material. 2. what something is not, is not lead material. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to your first point, WP:LEAD says that the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." It doesn't seem to me as if the removed material relates to a prominent controversy re citizenship generally. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Women having had not full equal citizen rights not a controversy? Thats a joke right? ... @Debresser I do not agree there are lots of leads who do that. The limitations of something are crucial and should at least be hinted towards. Can we find a text that works for you?Nsae Comp (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The third para of the lead summarizes how citizenship relates to individual rights, but it doesn't seem to relate to any specific article section with more detail on that.The Different senses section mentions citizenship rights and obligations in a more general way than the History section -- perhaps that section should be relocated above the History section and some content added between them fleshing out the bones of points introduced there before moving to historical specifics; the areas which concern you might fit there. All of that goes well beyond what I intended to suggest in my comment above, though, and isn't well thought out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Limitations can be useful, of course. In this case, there was an explanation of what citizenship does not include, or as least not automatically. That is not the same as explaining the limitations of the concept, although I understand t is related, but the bottom line remains that I think that was superfluous in the lead. In general, a lead should summarize the article. Examples are almost per definition not lead material. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added one sentance that might help to resolve the main problem and refer to an article more at core of the issue. I hope thats ok with you? PS: eny more elaborations I will try to add them in the chapters below Nsae Comp (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2020 (UTCw

I'm not really following this, but I just saw this from a series of edits by you. There, I've WP:BOLDly removed the sentence you added saying, As such citizenship rights and naturalization [...]. The final sentence in the previous para said, The status of citizenship does not of itself create any rights in a person not bestowed or recognised by the state. The wording there seems clumsy and I'm not sure I follow the intended meaning, but this added sentence seemed at cross-purposes with that -- it seems to be speaking to the acquisition by naturalization of rights associated with citizenship. The topic of this article is citizenship, and naturalization is simply a means by which citizenship might be acquired. I don't think that the introduction of naturalization at that early point in the article makes sense -- perhaps I'm missing something here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that this is again not understood and that I seem to not be able to bring my point across. As I understand the article and especially the lead mainly deals with citizenship as an international title, but missing out to point at citizenship having also an important dimension within a state and its people as title to civil and political rights. I added naturlization since it is the process of gaining citizenship and such rights respectively. I still hope we can find a solution to highlite this crucial dimension of citizenship. How about just leaving "naturalization" out of the suggested sentance? Nsae Comp (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make a fresh start at this. I think that the first two sentences of the MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH are OK. I propose changing the third sentence to read: Recognition by a state as a citizen generally carries with it recognition of certain rights of citizenship which are not afforded to non-citizens. If that change isn't made by another editor or disputed here, I'll plan to make it tomorrow. In the meantime, is there discussion here about that? In particular, Nsae Comp (or anyone else who wants to chip in), is there some concept not included there which you think ought to be included within the boundaries of the article topic? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I cant see what you try to change/emphazise with that sentance, thus I cant really object.Nsae Comp (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I made the change in the lead para here. I clarified "certain rights" in the proposed text as "civil, political, and social rights", which is expanded upon in the Different senses section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Its minimal, it shall suffice, but I like it, thanks. (Ill though will add links to civil an social rights) Nsae Comp (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of lead content

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 Joaqun Furnas Dasi (2005). Roger W. Caves (ed.). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. pp. 65-66. ISBN 9780415252256.. 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)

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)

References

Recent change

[7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bold edit to the lead sentence

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.^(quoted)

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 @Mechanical Keyboarder 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)

References

Disruptive editing on this article by two anonymous user

@41.128.174.218: 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.

@41.39.154.19: 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)

What is Citizenship?

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)

Social studies

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