Talk:Nationality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i have iraqi nationality i want to be indian sdfg

Contents

[edit] Nationalities a government position?

"Vladimir Lenin was elected chairman and other appointments included leading Bolsheviks such as Leon Trotsky (Foreign Affairs) Alexei Rykov (Internal Affairs), Anatoli Lunacharsky (Education) and Joseph Stalin (Nationalities). "

What was Stalins position? To reconcile ethnic differences within the state?

-G

As a Georgian and a member of a minority group who had written about the problems of non-Russian peoples living under the Tsar, Stalin was seen as the obvious choice as Commissar of Nationalities. It was a job that gave Stalin tremendous power for nearly half the country's population fell into the category of non-Russian. Stalin now had the responsibility of dealing with 65 million Ukrainians, Georgians, Byelorussians, Tadzhiks, Buriats and Yakuts.

[edit] Problem with current article's organization

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] what natoinality am I

I was born in London England and I consider myself to be English but members of my family and friends insist that I am British

A petty concern you might think

Sylvi

This is what the article fails to mention, you say you're English and your family say you should be British. Each individual resident in every country and even unofficial unrecognised country (ie. rebel held zones - even in war a system of some kind exists), has the right to choose their nationality and this need have no correlation with race, skin colour or ethnicity (the latter I don't believe truely exists). There does not have to be an existing country for you to say you're such and such a national (eg. Kurd), hence Britain recognises 193 independent countries and the number of languages is close to 6,000, so not every nation has a state; so it must be said that your nationality is what you personally declare yourself, and this can change census by census and you can personally call yourself something different every day. The reason that the census is important is because what you generally write will be published, and if enough people give the same name for a fictional nation you have created, say 2%, then that's how it will stand in atlases, encyclopaedias etc. The CIA World Factbook recognises hundreds of nations you would never have believed could exist as such: common to independent Caribbean countries is the declaration black written entirely lower-case, this may precede the next biggest group which is British and so on. Meanwhile in the UK, it is generally accepted (and must in any democratic society be accepted) that English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish (for Belfast) are individual nationalities even if the residents are all British citizens. This is your dispute. Your family have no right to tell you (you are British, not English), that is your choice. Nationality is largely ones affiliation to another group of people, be it on linguistic, religious or proposed ethnic grounds, or anything else they so choose collectively. In the former Yugoslav republics, around 1% of the people from all six republics declare themselves Yugoslav, as do a tiny (but significant) number of people scattered thoughout the world descending from the former Yugoslav diaspora - this must also be respected as ones choice. Over the centuries, nationalities and names of nations have come and gone, all together, there is nothing concrete about nationality entire of itself - citizenship and life in ones homeland are the important factors. Evlekis 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not that the CIA Factbook recognises different nationalities as lower case black but a case of Nationality being interpreted differently with each country, society, and dare I say it - nation. In the UK and the USA, they ask you for your Ethnic Group, an answer to which might be more along the lines of "what is your race?" so people respond, White, Black etc. then they will add European, Asian or something. Then they "code" it. So people like you and me from the former Yugoslavia will be carved up into one single group "citizens from the former republics" or something, they do it with the USSR expatriots too. You see despite world politics, individuals themselves mean very little. It should also be noted that in many countries, UK included - nationality is synonymous with citizenship. It means you are expected by be classed as British IF you are a British citizen no matter what your ethnic background. Ragusan 23 Sep 2006
True but it still causes problems. If nobody from country to country can agree on exactly what constitutes nationality then there will always be conflicting arguements. Apart from the fact that there should be a universal approach (even if it means that Frenchman, White Ethnic from UK and Sardinian {nationals of whom embedded within greater country} are accepted as nationalities), it needs to be remembered that it is the individual who chooses his/her national affiliation and not other people, least of all society (ie. you come from Country A, you speak Language B, You are of Religion C, you are from D-class, you are from the E-cast, and you support basketball team F, that means your nationality is XYZ and not ABC as you claim.) According to the Canadian census, there are those who declare themselves British, and those English or Scottish etc. I say it is perfectly all right and non-offensive to consider yourself English and not British; the wretched system known as political correctness is the factor which aims to encourage people to use the latter. I say, it is not as if people classing themselves Scottish or Cornish or even Cumbrian will ever make a serious bid for independence, just as many stable countries thoughout the world are multi-ethnic. Evlekis 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Евлекис


Evlekis - neither race , ethnicity or 'personal choice' determine your Nationality . Your nationality is determined by which Polity has (ultimate) legal jurisdiction over you . The term Nationality is very often used incorrectly . You can be of any ethnic group or racial type but if a Law passed in the Westminster Parliament applies to you then you are of British nationality .( 'British' is not a race or ethnic group it is a political unit or Polity ) Lejon Monday 13 Nov.06

That is how the term is defined in Britain. The pure fact is that nationality is rendered differently by each society. It is correct that the British Home Office accepts an Austrian-born man with a Turkish father and South African mother as having British nationality once he has naturalised. That though is citizenship. If nationality were to do with legal system then there could only be 193 nationalities in the whole world because that is as many countries as the UK recognises. Match that with around 6,000 languages spoken on Earth. Nations are imagined communities, I accept that, but whatever you personally choose is your own nationality. See the Canadian census for a good example. Evlekis 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Evlekis there is in fact a significant difference between Nationality and citizenship .Very briefly - Nationality relates to the Polity you owe your allegience to and the Polity which owes you its protection . While citizenship relates to the 'rights and responsibilities' you may or may not have within that Polity or Nation . Sylvi is ' ethnicaly ' English but is a British National . lejon 16 Nov 06

You have more or less said what I have been trying to say, I know that there is a big difference between citizenship and nationality. I was getting at how the terms are defined in Britain. Often, official forms request your nationality when what they really want is your citizenship. It is the citizenship which grants you the rights to services offered by the state, even if the Home Office calls British Citizens by the title "nationals". Your Sylvi is English because she so chooses to be affiliated to English people only. Her neighbour may be a relation and choose to be British, in that she invites the Scottish, Welsh and Irish to embrace the nationality. In truth, they need not be from Scotland or Wales etc. They may come from another country but choose to identify as British as some do, the problem is whether the bulk of the British accept them but it makes no difference to what they choose. So, here now is a brief description of "Citizen" & "Citizenship" from the OED: Definition of a citizen: a native registered or naturalised member of state or political community. Citizenship: condition/status of citizen including rights and duties. Now for 'Nationality': 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation; 2. An ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations. Now I personally class ethnicity with the race and not the individual for advanced technical reasons which I won't explain just yet, though if this British view were to be universally accepted, then there would be no Kurdish nation (all homeland Kurds would be Iraqi, Turkish, Iranian, Syrian or Armenian by so-called nationality here) and there would be no Basque nationality for similar reasons. However, Basques and Kurds are obvious cases. What about dissident communities in countries who identify by older national names or sometimes newly developed ones since falling within present day borders? My family region of the Balkans is a fine example, there you have more nationalities than you do people. Do you know that in Italy, most Sardinians register as having Sardinian nationality. In smaller numbers, you get this from Sicilians, Piedmontese, Venetians, Genoans, Ligurians etc. That doesn't stop some people from Sardinia however as claiming to be Italian either, it is the choice of the person. Poland is itself made up of various subgroups who have one thing in common, Slavic ancestry and being Slavophones living in prolonged proximity. Even so, most people today like to be Polish but down south, the Silesians still cry for greater rights in the name of Silesia and its region still has a Silesian ethnic majority with Poles coming in second. But Pomeranians (from Gdansk) have no greater Polish nationality than these Silesians. The list grows, the examples become more and more complex. If you want to try out an experiment Lejon, here is one: how do you define a citizen of France who has Greek nationality? To be more precise, what are his connections to France and to the French, and what does he have with the Greeks and Greece (given that a Greek state does exist). I look forward to your response. Evlekis 16:35, 16 November 2006 Евлекис

Evlekis , a citizen of France is no longer a Greek . S/he is a French National of Greek extraction or ethnicity . I live in Australia where there are approximately 150 different ethnic groups from all over the world - we are a ' multi-cultural ' country but all citizens are Australian Nationals . There are no Kurdish or Basque nations they are ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements . I believe there are some countries that never allow their nationals to actualy renounce thier citizenship / nationality - that only becomes a problem if for instance our hypothetical Greek Frenchman actualy leaves France and returns to Greece whereupon the Greek Government could insist that s/he carries out certain ( Greek ) citizenship responsibilities - for instance military service. However while in France our Greek is a French National ! Most of the minority ethnic groups you mention do not have the attributes of Nations for example- Sovereign independance and international recognition . lejon 19 Nov 06

Well Lejon, I now see exactly what is inspiring your theory. "A citizen of France is no longer a Greek" and "Citizenship & Nationality are two different things", you said in your previous statements. You imply that citizenship and nationality are BOTH legal standings recognised by the government in question and yet it is impossible to split them apart by having one of the first and another of the second. In other words, you see nationality and citizenship as being the same; ie.a legal status offering rights and priveleges to services offered by country. It is absolutely correct that not every status happens to be that of "citizenship", you can for example be a "British Subject" never becoming a citizen. Now I will tell you that becoming a British Subject for anyone is a walk in the park (little beaurocracy involved), but becoming a British citizen is a long task which for many is unsuccessful. Nationality however has nothing to do with this; your theory of it is based on its misguided usage by Australian and British authorities. I am not mad on preserving old language, though you may find this interesting: The British Passport, to my disgust has the caption: Nationality to which the response printed by the Home Office is British Citizen. Check any passport and you'll find this. It seems that even they don't even know the difference. Passports relate to citizens; there is no ceremony or ritual in any state which formally inaugurates Mr.Q as now having a certain nationality giving him certain priveleges but not those of a full citizen. Suffice it to say, that this status does not exist and if it did, "nationality" would not be the right term, and difinitely not universally accepted. If you look at a standard Bulgarian passport, it says "Гражданство" (transliterated as Grazhdanstvo) to which the responce is "Bulgarian" but the English translation (on the Bulgarian document) does just happen to call it "Nationality". Do you know why? Because whoever was commissioned to sit and work with the Bulgarian authorities herself clearly had no idea about the usage; the Bulgarian must have explained what in Bulgarian Grazhdanstvo is, and the primary English speaker thought "oh that is nationality". Is it? We'll see: The English word Citizen is based on the root "City" just as Bulgarian Grazhdanstvo is based on "Grad" (city). The Bulgarian word for nation however is "Narod" - (lit. on birth), and Nation too derives from Latin Nacio - "of common birth", hence Eng.Nationality = Bulg.Narodnost not Grazhdanstvo. Now, as for ethnicity. If you click on Ethnicity, you may now have seen that it goes straight to Ethnic group. This is the section in which the UK government (and I now assume, Australian too) allow the person to choose his ethnic affiliation. These start off simple: white, black etc. then they become more sophisticated, White Asian, South American etc. until they finally knock on the door of the modern countries such as "Black South African" etc. Many of those from the former Yugoslavia will be annoyed to see that they are tarred with the same brush - "ethnic group: white from Former Yugoslav Republics", this is how it was in 2001, time will tell if it will be modified by 2011. Even this Lejon, shows Briatin's reluctancy to take a keen interest in what the actual person thinks of him/herself. If you ask me, it is complete nonsense. The word "ethnic" is nothing more than the Greek variant of "National" hence "Ethnikos Aerolimenas" are National Airlines. I personally don't think the word is needed in English beyond enriching the language with terms such as "down ethnic lines", or "ethnic discrimination". In both these cases, "national" would have sufficed. After all, the two words come from different languages meaning the same thing (ie. Greek uses ethnikos where English uses both Ethnic and National and it causes no ambiguity, in the Slavic languages we use Narodno and it too fits the bill). The fact is Lejon, that true ethnicity does not come into it. One identifies as being Greek, or English because that is how he feels, normally in accordance with his upbringing. Your wife Sylvi was surely conditioned by society to be British but saw that many Scots and Welsh rejected this and so she is quite right to feel English. Ethnicity means nothing, MOST of Scotland's population is Anglo-Scottish and they seem aware of this. Only a small percentage is Highland or Ulster Scotts, supposedly descended from the earlier settlers, they use language as a form of identity. This means that all the Scots whom you know are blood related to Sylvi, but try to explain to them that this should make you a single nation without upsetting them! Family of mine who lived in Greece identifed as Macedonian Slavs. Subsequently those who insisted on this were expelled by the Metaxas regime and those who chose to stay were forcefully dissimilated, and a Greek name and identity was officially instilled. In that time, many who knew of their Slavic past and still spoke the language began to accept the Greek identity, so infact, today we still have some people in Greece born before 1945 who have no knowledge of Greek ancestry but automaticly inherit Greek history from having denounced their own, this is acceptable, so when one of these people settles in France or Australia, he is just as Greek by nationality as he was the day before he left, even if he has acquired Australian citizenship. Ethnicity is irrelevant, nationality does not have to conform to a country and citizenship is a legal status. Basques and Kurds ARE nations. The Kurds are of the same ethnic background as one of their subjugators, Iran (Persian, from the same ancestors), and their language is testemony of this. Furthermore, whatever you or I may think, Basques and Kurds are universally accepted as being nations and Kurdish IS the nationality of Jalal Talabani. He himself identifies so. As for ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements? These can emerge at any time just as they can disolve. One century ago, the people of Macedonia (Slavs) were split between being Bulgarian or Serbian prompting conflict between Bulgarians and Serbs based at their respective pivots. Thus was created the VMRO and the Macedonian Slav nation was born, suppressed by Serbs during the interwar period, and embraced by Bulgarians during the same time (with their different approach) as a means to state that they may still be Macedonian BUT a Bulgarian subgroup at that, and neither could prevent todays Republic in south-eastern Europe existing. National ideas arise, nationality is born, a country is created, the citizenship comes into effect, and dreams are realised. Alternatively it could go the other way, many nationalities existed in earlier years which no longer do because the population bowed to the pressure of neighbouring nations who promised to take care of them, as such we no longer have Slavonians, only Croatians, even though history witnessed a Croatia-Slavonia crownwloand in Austria-Hungary with its respective residents identifying as such. Of course, it is not through choice that Basques live under French or Spanish rule, nobody asked them if they'd like a state of their own. Sylvi calls herself English, and I fully accept that English is what she is, forget ethnicity sand stuff legal citizenship. Her affiliates are other English who have no private alleagiance to the wider British community. British or Australian may be her citizenships and that is how far national naming goes: one nationality, your choice, even if you are the only one, and however many citizenships you need which are allowed by the concerned states. Evlekis 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Evlekis , thanks for the history lesson . I can see that we will never agree on this issue .Just a couple of small notes - first ' Sylvi ' is not my wife .And secondly if I claim that I am a member of the Sioux Nation does that mean that as I do not come under the jurisdiction of the Australian Nation I therefore do not have to pay tax to the Australian Government ? Sounds good to me !...... I wish all dissident communities the best of luck .lejon 19 November 06 .

All right, may I first apologise for assuming Sylvi was your wife; quite how I concluded that I don't know but no offence intended. It appears that I went off the rails on my previous statement and I admit that even in the space of 24 hours I have learnt a little something. Neither of us are wrong in what we mean and much of the disparity is because of the conflict within the term "nationality" itself. You take the term purely as a legal issue and you are not completely wrong. Citizenship, or so it appears is just one type of status according to British Nationality Law, for that is what it is called. Since there are many different statuses created for various communities, the term "Nationality" has been chosen as a superlative to which in legal terms, "Citizenship", is merely a single branch. The article explains clearly that the cognate of the word is rendered differently in each country and by every strand of society. So, when an institution or establishment asks on an application form for "Nationality", my passport gives the appropriate response when listing "British Citizen" when infact it could just as easily be: "British Subject", "British Protected Person" or sometimes "British Overseas Territories Citizen." From a list of about half a dozen types, Full Citizenship offers maximum protection and rights to participate. Passports and Travel Documents are issued accordingly; where does this leave us? It seems that if British (N)ationality (with upper case N) has various types, so do others and therefore the appropriate answer would be one in full like those I have mentioned. In so far as a one word answer in the shape of an adjective goes (ie. British or English), it would appear that the applicant is responding to ethnic/national affiliation, and this perpetually goes unnoticed everywhere. It would be a lot easier if the term "Nationality" was replaced by the more appropriate "Legal Status" and (n)ationality (lower case n) return to its original form "status of belong to particular nation", which can only respond to the declaration as chosen by the person regardless of pedigree. Either way, it would be inconsistent and somewhat folly to demand "what type of British...?" whilst accepting "Nicaraguan" on its own. In the meantime, if you declare yourself one of the Sioux and you avoid tax, good luck. I doubt it will work because Australia calls upon all residents to pay tax, and those 150 so-called "nations" they recognise are just names of countries. If the Australian government have classified that it is Nationality that is on their minds and not nationality, then they too can look forward to thousands upon thousands of unintelligible items of literature from the people of India, Spain, China and most of the world who have accepted the wider and older definition. I hope that we stand closer on this now. One more small thing, slight change of subject but maybe useful for your avoiding tax: if Australia recognises 150 "Nationalities", what about the other 43? Australia recognises 193 countries and has as many embassies or consulates. I'd personally opt for naturalisation into one of those "nations" and you might be better off! Who knows! Evlekis 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken regarding Sylvi - I just thought I had better clear that up in case Sylvi is following this discussion . ' Nationality ' must be one of the most complicated concepts there is . You have certainly given me a different perspective on the term ' ethnic ' - in Australia it is commonly used to describe groups that are culturaly different from the prevailing 'British'(English/Irish/Scottish )culture. But in its true sense you are right it does actualy mean 'nationality' . Australia is described as a 'multi-cultural' ( not multi-ethnic/national )country but there is only one Nation - Australia . All cultural groups come under the legal jurisdiction of the Australian Parliament .Which is why ( in my view at least ) our hypothetical 'Greek 'with French citizenship is a French National . His/her possible Greek nationality is a separate issue . I have just noticed that you have said that there is no Greek State ? The 1975 Greek Constitution describes Greece as a ' presidential parliamentary Republic' with a President who is the ' Head of State ' . Greece is also a member of the European Union ( Wikipedia )and since 1945 has been a member of the United Nations . I am of English / Irish extraction and was born a British subject ( in Australia ) and was required to state that my Nationality as British on our census forms until about 1970 .I always personaly considered myself to be an Australian ( National ) but the legal fact is that I was a British National until the Australia Acts 1986 described Australia as a Sovereign Independant Nation and severed all legal ties with Britain . Australia is now a Sovereign Independant Nation and no longer a British Dominion but the point of separation is hotly disputed and even the Australian High Court has stated that the exact point of separation may never be precisely identifiable .The sticking point is in trying to come to an exact definition of the term Nation ( and Nationality ). Lejon Tuesday 21 Nov 06

[edit] Independent Australia

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)

[edit] one suggestion!

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)

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)

[edit] 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! – SJL 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)