Talk:World citizen/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Rewrite

I deleted almost all of the old material. The term "world citizen" is a vague term with no firm, independent meaning. The old material was tautalogical and repetitive, with sentences like, "world citizens assert their independence as citizens of the Earth, the world, or the cosmos." I can't see what the difference between those three terms is.

Likewise, rubbish like: they "wish to identify themselves first and foremost as human beings and then by any groupings to which they may seem to belong." What does it mean to identify oneself as a human being first, except to distinguish oneself from an animal or plant?

The only other information was a set of uncontroversial characteristics, couched in weasel words saying that they MAY oppose poverty or prejudice, and so on. In addition, there was a long extract from the article on the Baha'i faith, and some unsupported, questionable statements about Greek philosophy. The list of world citizens was silly, uncited, and full of errors. Most importantly, calling oneself or someone else a "world citizen" is to use a general, wishy-washy term devoid of serious meaning. It's like compiling a list of "cool people."

Wikipedia might have benefited from an outright deletion, but I kept the one sentence definition, with links to articles that better cover the different meanings that the term might have in different contexts. OneVeryBadMan 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)



Is there any reasonably-sized "world citizen" movement? I've seen beliefs such as these held before, and imagine they're not entirely uncommon, but have not specifically heard of them being part of a "world citizen" sort of thing. --Delirium 06:35, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
... Well, most people I know think this way (myself included). There's no movement though, there's no need for one. It's just a logical conclusion =D btw, I agree with the post below, NPOV, truth > propaganda etc etc --Kraftwerk--

Is it just me, or does this article sound a little too self-righteous?--Grevlek 16:14, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't just you. I'm not sure about "self-righteous", but this seems less like an encyclopedia article, more like an advertising flyer. I wonder about the distinction between "world citizen" (which sounds a bit grandiose, or alternatively the kind of vapid phrase that a credit card company or similar might use in an advertising campaign) and "internationalist" (which might also be grandiose, but at least expresses a clear contrast with "nationalist"). And if being a world citizen means you have to stay awake through books about "existentialism", count me out, antinationalist though I am. -- Hoary 01:13, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
I agree. This article does seem rather devoid of criticism, unlike most ideology articles. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, is Internationalist really the same as World Citizen? Maybe Internationalist should point to Internationalism (politics) instead? - FrancisTyers 13:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

IMO, inter-nationalism is based on nations, while citizens of the world are directly interested in the world itself, not specifically via nations. --Pgreenfinch 16:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

So Internationalist probably shouldn't point here then... - FrancisTyers 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Or it should point, but with some mention, in order to clarify the ambiguity, about the difference of meanings. Something like:
"the notion of inter(-)nationalism, which supposes that nations are the key to world organisation, should not be taken an exact synonym of World citizen, which supposes a direct interest in the world as a whole"
. If no objections, I'm planning to do this. --Pgreenfinch 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, Internationalist can also mean someone who is a member of a socialist or communist international. Also, I think in some cases, internationalism doesn't suppose that nations are the key to world organisation. I have always equated internationalism with being opposed to nation states. Where:
International = Extending across or transcending national boundaries.
Internationalism = The condition or quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or attitude.
Internationalist = An advocate of internationalism
I realise that some of these links may be tenuous and may not be the 'correct' definition but I think that more than just myself have this opinion. A couple of caveats: all the above definitions are taken selectively from dictionary.com (not the best dictionary out there I know) and I'm from the UK so I may have a different view of this than people from other countries. - FrancisTyers 10:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


I find the section about "promoting world citizenship" very confusing, is it talking about how the world is trying to promote world citizenship in public schools? I don't think that's the case. If that's not what the section is about, it must be reccomendations for how world citizenship is supposed to be promoted, or what? I came here for info about this subject, and know almost nothing about, if anyone does, could they please clarify it?

Removed 'see also' section

In case anybody's wondering, I removed the 'see also' section because it violated Wikipedia:Avoid self references. I'll add a note at the top of this page directing people to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens for anybody who's trying to find out. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I was just thinking about adding a link to the World Citizens wikipedians list, except that the section heading says "famous people". I don't think it's such a big deal if this link appears in the article. PaulHammond 13:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

"such a big deal" or not, Wikipedia:Avoid self references does exist and is quite clear. Secondary users of Wikipedia content would not care for a list of Wikipedians. I'm removing the link also, as Frazzydee's link atop this talk page should be quite sufficient. --mordemur 14:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Left Behind

This sounds like it would be out of the Left Behind series... Beware! --Shanedidona 21:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Famous world citizens"

Is there any reliable source for the examples under this section? While many of them may have been likely to approve of the idea of world citizenship, is it verified that they see (or saw) themselves as such?Noble 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Line in opening

Is a "patriotic identity" really dictated by a "national government"? Certainly not I think. I will change it without any contrary feedback. Srnec 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, please change it. -- Jeff3000 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Improved? Srnec 05:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion (which is based on my understanding, which may be wrong). I would remove the connection to a government; for example, a person might identify with a race that is not a nation, for example Quebecers. So here's another possible line, which is much more general (perhaps too general):
By refusing to accept any patriotic identity world citizens assert their independence as citizens of the Earth, the world, or the cosmos. -- Jeff3000 05:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I entirely understand what you mean by "a person might identify with a race that is not a nation." As it stands, I think its fine. If you think it should be elaborated such that world citizens are described basically as not recognising any identity other than that of "human" or "earthling" or whatever, please add it. Srnec 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


removing: "World Passports" issued by the World Service Authority.

This World Service Authority looks like much more like a scheme than like a serious movement. Specially considering that they advocate for not-paying national taxes but paying them instead. I am going to remove them, if no one has anything against it.