Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Policy on nationality statements

Nationality is always a contentions topic. In accordance with the fundamental principles of WP it is important that we treat this subject neutrally in all articles. At present there is no clear guidance on how to do this, and thus results in various regional and separatist group using WP as a promotional vehicle for their cause. It also results in squabbles and edit wars over who 'owns' the good and the great.

I think it would be beneficial to have a community-wide discusssion in order to provide policy guidance on this issue. The important thing is to keeep WP neutral and stop it being used to push any particular POV. What is the best way to start this process? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you give an example, even abstract, of what you mean by "various regional and separatist group using WP as a promotional vehicle" and neutral vs non-neutral treatment of nationality statements ? Neutral POV is always a concern, and there are policies for exactly that reason. “WarKosign” 11:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

One example of the kind of thing that I am talking about is the discusssion at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Nationality. Maxwell's nationality is listed as 'Scottish' which from an international or diplomatic perspective does not exist. All inhabitants of the UK have British nationality.

In my opinion, the problem is that the discusssion rapidly moves from the factual to arguments about personal self-identity and strong feelings of cultural, ethnic, and historical identity. Let me make it quite clear that I have no desire whatever to suppress any of that, only to prevent it from being expressed in a statement of nationality, especially in an infobox, where readers should expect something factual that takes a world view supported by official reliable sources. I would therefore propose that 'nationality' should only refer to an independent state recognised by the UN. This is a simple, non POV, easily undersood and enforced rule that gives a clear level of consistency for our readers. It does not in any way prevent cultural, ethnic, and historical identities from being expressed in articles.

Another example would be the nationality of Marie Curie. This is a more complicated case but sime simple rules, relating formal and verifiable facts would, in my opinion, help. 'Nationality' should be treated as a formal fact, decided by diplomatic status. Country of birth, self-identified geographgical home, places of residence, nationality of parents are all important facts but they are not 'nationality'. The problem is that everybody wants to 'own' the good and the great. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In most cases, self-identification is best. Where the nation no longer exists, I suggest we still use the term the person would have recognized as their nationality. Not just "current nation sovereign over the person's birthplace." Alexander the Great was Macedonian. Collect (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Self-identification is a recipe for endless arguments. Where the subject is a national of an independent state, 'nationality' should be of that state. Other facts should be stated in context if supported by reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that your exaple contains several claims that are arguable and are very far from neutral point of view. Scottish people "are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland", which I believe makes them a nationality.Nationality "differs technically and legally from citizenship". A Scottsman living in the USA is likely to still declare his nationality as Scottish. Are you denying ethnic minorities living in exile their nationalities ? What about immigrants, does their nationality suddenly change ?

There is no single definition of nationality, so no matter how you propose to determine it, many people would disagree. It's a matter of reaching a (painful) consensus in each individual case.

In my opinion, self-identification is a good start in many cases. “WarKosign” 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, You have a point about ethic minorities, especially where they don't identify with the state that defines their nationality, and where their own state exists today. However, the issue that Martin has raised does not concern ethnic minorities, neither does it concern historical boundary changes, nor does it concern a subject who was uncomfortable with his official nationality. For your information as a side issue, most Scots are ethically indistinct from the English. Only the Gaelic Highlanders in the north west stand out as being in any way ethnically distinct from the rest of the population of Britain, and they are only a small minority within Scotland, albeit that aspects of their culture such as kilts, tartan, and bagpipes, have been adopted by the Lowlanders since the nineteenth century in order to forge a Scottish identity. Also, Martin is quite happy to have the subject described as Scottish in the main body of the text. He simply wants the nationality field in the info box to read correctly. At the moment it is wrong, firstly because in the time of the subject, the status of 'British citizen' did not exist. The subject was a 'British subject' and so the nationality field should read 'British' and not Scottish. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The best thing to do is walk away from the British -vs- English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish usage argument. I tried adopting British & United Kingdom to bios in the past & was unsuccessful. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In any case, what is 'nationality'? Are you saying no one can be of Kurdish nationality, Scottish nationality, etc? We have an essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. What do you think of it? You're going to have a hard time insisting that every UK citizen be called British. And how do you deal with dual nationality if you won't allow self-identification? I still identify with my home country, I wouldn't want a nationality foisted upon me. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case that Martin is referring to, the subject is described as Scottish in the main text. Martin is not complaining about that. He simple wants the nationality field in the info box to read 'British'. Do you have any evidence that this particular subject would have objected to his official nationality? 109.152.249.9 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's about a specific case, it's best to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page with people somewhat familiar with the subject. “WarKosign” 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, like it or not, like most people, you do have a nationality foisted upon you. If you have a passport it will be the nationality that is written on it, it will be the independent state to whose laws you are subject, or the country whose embassy you would usually go to if you got into trouble in a foreign country. You are free to describe yourself and self-identify in any way that you wish but your nationality is a simple matter of fact. I cannot, and do not, insist that every British national is decribed as 'British', just that their Nationality is stated as 'British'.

To counter the misinformation: "nationality" is nothing to do with "British". There is no "official nationality". There is no such thing as "British nationality". There is no mention of "British nationality" (or any nationality) in UK passports or on UK birth certificates. People are called "British citizen" on UK passports. Citizen means having the full rights of citizenship of the UK. The UK, since its establishment, and as currently established, is a union of nations. One of those nations is Scotland. So, by definition, it is possible for someone to be described as Scottish or of Scottish nationality. Also, but I could stand to be corrected on this, on birth certificates of persons born in the UK I think the particular royal coat-of-arms of the nation in question (be it Scotland, England, Wales, etc,) appears. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoe, I'm afraid you are wrong. British nationality is clearly defined in this government website https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/overview British citizenship has been a sub-set of British nationality since 1983. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

None of that is to do with the concept of "nationality" as expressed in this RfC, which is about being a member of a nation. There is no nation called Britain so there is no British nationality. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoes, The document in the link makes it quite clear that there is British nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it simply uses the term, colloquially, to refer to citizenship. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for a general policy

This is not just about a specific case it is about how to maintain a NPOV policy for Wikipedia. The probem with many bios is that various groups of editors want to try to claim ownership of the good and the great using the term 'nationality' (and maybe to disown certain less agreeable characters). In the example of Maxwell, he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, educated in Edinburgh, Cambridge, Aberdeen and London, where he did his most important work. I do not think it is known how he self-identified. Now all that cannot posssibly be condensed into the name of a single country but at present, he is being 'claimed' by Scotland. I am not trying to claim him for England, London, or Britain; no one should be doing that. The details of such matters can be explained in the text but his nationality was 'British'. He was ultimately subject to the rule of the UK Parliament. Scotland has a separate legal system from the rest of the UK but, if the UK parliament had, for some reason, conscripted Maxwell to fight in a war. Maxwell would have had to do so. Had he had, say, French or German nationality he would not have had to fight.

The case of Marie Curie is still more complicated and regularly the subjecty of edit wars.

I am proposing that in all cases where reasonably practicable, the term 'nationality' should be reserved for the legal nationality of the subject based on the independent state to whose laws they are subject. The aim is to prevent the term from being abused as a means for various people to try to claim the good and the great for their own.

I propose to formulate the wording for a RfC to get the widest possible input from the WP community. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There are different definitions of nationality, different rules concerning how it is determined and how it can or cannot channge. A few examples:

• Soviet subjects had an internal passport, with their nationality/ethnicity stated, and used for official or unofficial discriminaton by the authorities. The nationality of a child was of one of the parents, usally be parent's choice. There was no way to change the registration (except bribing a clerk).
• Israel citizens had their ethnicity ("nation") stated in the ID cards, as plain "Jew" or "Arab" till 2005 and currently encoded (different number of asterisks for each nationality). For a child to be considered to be of Jewish nationality the mother has to be Jewish, I'm not sure if for other enthnic groups it is determined by the mother or the father. A person undergoing Conversion to Judaism under certain condition can change the registred nationality. Nationality of non-citizens and their relatives detrimes their ligibility for Israeli citizenship.
• A person born to Dutch parents is considered Dutch national by the Dutch law. A child born to non-Dutch parents in Netherlands is normally not considered Dutch national.
• A person born in the USA to parents of any nationality is considered an American national. "Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship", therefore there are many Americans that are proud of their deverse enthnicity, such as Italian American, Chinese American, etc.

As you can see these laws are complicated, depend on many details and often conflict with each other, so I don't think there can be a simple policy in wikipedia to determine a person's nationality. “WarKosign” 18:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see as much of a problem as you do. Whatever the laws of a country on nationality those are the laws that we should apply.

I am not suggesting that we equate nationality with ethnicity, religion, self-identification or anything else. That is exectly my point. Nationality is determined by the laws of the countries of which a person may be a national. This is an objective criterion which does not depend on interpretation by editors here. As it is now, there is a continual clamour for ownership of the good and the great. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In some cases giving the correct nationality of a subject might look incongruous but that can be explained in the text. That must surely be better than trying to sum up issues of birthplace, national identity, ethnicity, religion in just one term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the nationality with citizenship. In many countries they are the same, in many others they are different.

Applying the laws: What is the nationality of a child born to a Dutch father and a Jewish mother in the USA who later repatriated to Israel ? Dutch, American or Jewish ? It is not up to us to determine the nationality in complicated cases, it is up to reliable sources (including the person in question themselves as a primary source) to tell us what the nationality is. “WarKosign” 19:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question but I can say for sure that there will be an answer, determined by the relevant laws of The Netherlands, US and Israel. Whatever those laws say is the nationality we must use in WP. It could be dual or triple or they might even be stateless but whatever it is it will be a matter of fact, not something that we as editors of an encyclopdia can make up. The person concerned cannot decide either, in many cases that may wish that they could but nationality is not decided by a person's feeelings or self identity, it is decided by the nationality laws of the relevant independent states.

My main point is this. If we use the international legal position to decide on what nationality to use there can be no arguments or edit warring it will just be a matter of fact. If we allow nationality to be decided by editors here, even by considering sources, or by the person concerned we have a recipe for endless conflict, and worse than that, we mislead our readers by giving them someone's interpretation of what nationality should be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be original research and therefore prohibited. Deciding whether and how the laws of different countries apply to specific people is the lawyer's and government clerk's job, and even they don't always agree. If we use our own judgement we mislead the readers even more, since then we would be giving our own interpretation of what nationality should be, and we are (mostly) not experts. See this article. “WarKosign” 08:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be exactly the opposite, it would be determining a matter of fact. The legal nationality is determined by the laws of the coutries involved; no decisions by editors here are required.

In fact, any other method is OR. How exactly would you propose we decide on a person's nationality? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not decide, we represent reliable sources. If there is a contradiction between the sources, we represent all the POVs.

Please read WP:SYN carefully: If we have a source saying that people born to British parents in the UK are British, and another that says that X was born to British parents in the UK, it makes perfect sense to reach the conclusion that X is British - yet it is OR/SYN, therefore we do not do it. Instead we find a source that reaches this conclusion for us. “WarKosign” 20:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The only original research relating to this debate, has been on the part of editor FF-UK who is using his own interpretation of census data in order to argue that British nationality no longer exists. British nationality does exist, and it is mentioned frequently on the news. I'm very disappointed that few editors have picked FF-UK up on what he is doing. He is using his own original research in order to push the political cause of burying British nationality. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

IP 109.152.249.9, I know that you have been contributing to WP for only a few days, but before accusing anyone of using original research you should make sure that you understand what it means. You must also stick to the facts, as in other walk of life you must not lie or dissemble. Had you taken the trouble to find out about OR you would have understood that the policy applies to Articles only, it has no effect on Talk Pages. As my only contributions to the James Clerk Maxwell article have been three reverts (all over the last three months) of edits which have sought to change the long standing (eight years) entry for Maxwell's nationality as Scottish, then it is obvious that there is no OR involved on my part as I have contributed no new material whatsoever. As I have said, OR does not apply to talk pages, but in any case I have not used any OR in my talk contributions. I have certainly NOT argued that British nationality no longer exists! What I have done is to cite the results of the 2011 censuses in each of the nations of the UK to demonstrate that only a minority of UK citizens consider themselves to be British as opposed to English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or some other nationality, this is fact as recorded in the census reports cited. I have also cited references to the fact that Scotland IS a nation, and there IS such a thing as Scottish nationality. By comparison, those who disagree with what I have written on the talk pages have not cited any references to the contrary. Proving that British nationality exists (which is not actually disputed by anyone as far as I know) is in no way a proof that other nationalities do not exist. I expect you to acknowledge what I have written here, and offer a full apology for your false accusations. You need to do this both here and on the other talk pages (including all the talk pages of other users) where you have made similar false accusations. You must undertake not to repeat such lies, and to ensure that your future contributions to WP are made in an honest manner, if you do not know something, do not make it up! FF-UK (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

IP 109.152.249.9, I know that you will have seen this by now as you have been busy editing. Why have you not had the decency to respond with your apology? FF-UK (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am actually disputing that British nationality exists in the way it is being presented here. The words British, British nationals, Briton, etc. are often used very loosely, but can anyone present official documents with the exact words "British nationality" on them? "British national" is not the same as "British nationality". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about The British Nationality Act 1981 that defines all this in law. Bagunceiro (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, in what way do you think 'Nationality is being presented here? As the originator of this RfC, I mean it exactly as stated by Bagunceiro, the official nationality of a person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It does? Where? It refers a lot to "British citizenship", but the only uses of "British nationality" I found were titlees of acts of parliament. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC (nationality)

How should we show the nationality of a person in WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this RfC applies only to direct statements of nationality such as, 'The nationality of Joe Soap is XXX', or to the 'nationality' field in an infobox. It is not entended to apply to general descriptions in the text, such as 'The French scientist...'.

This has been a contentious and disputed topic on many talk pages. It is not clear at what level of independence and autonomy we can assign a nationality.

Proposal

We should only allow 'nationality' to refer to an independent state. For current states we should only allow states which are Member states of the United Nations. Nationality should show the independent state to whose laws the person was/is subject. (Dual nationality should be stated as such) Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As it seems that most of the respondents have not understood the proposal, let me make clear again that I am not referring to how we describe someone, that can be in a variety of ways (British, Cornish, European) and should, as always, be based on what is said in sources. I am talking about how we dirctlys state their nationality. In an infobox for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Support (nationality)

1. This policy avoids enless arguing and edit warring between separatist and other groups of editors. Details of the exact state of affair for issues such as ethnicity, religion, internal state or country, or self-identification can be described in the text but 'nationality' should be reserved for the independent state to whose laws the person was/is subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Wholehearted, strong support. For those who insist nationality is something subjective and "citizenship" is the correct term, perhaps we should change the word "nationality" to "citizenship" if that would appease them. The concept that we're trying to capture is which sovereign nation(s) the subject "belongs" to, not what they personally most identify with or anything of that ilk. WaggersTALK 13:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
5. The fact that only four contributors seem to have supported a no-brainer of a call for an infobox field to have a defined, consistent, clear and objectively verifiable application as against 19 who seem to think it should be a free-for-all based on whatever random descriptions of a person passing editors can dredge up one or two examples of from Google tells you all you need to know about why Wikipedia content is so regularly ridiculed and meaningless. Any serious publication defines its terms and sticks to that definition. Instead, people seem to want readers to come across a one-word description of someone's "nationality" and have no idea in each case whether the classification refers to membership of a nation-state, common – but, inevitably, rarely universal – third-party description of ethno-national identity or self-assertion of the latter. The fact that there are different uses of the term "nationality" in some contexts is not an argument for that free-for-all but precisely the reason infoboxes need to be clear about what exactly they are asserting. And that should of course be the most commonly understood usage, which also has the advantage of simplicity and objective verifiability in most cases. N-HH talk/edits 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

   I'm sure that the Hispanic leaders of the Puerto Rican independence movement would be overjoyed to find out that their nationality is now unambiguously American. I'm even more sure that the best way to describe a Kurd's nationality is based on which side of the Syria/Iraq border she happened to live. And most of all, I know that the nationality of someone living in Tibet is completely black-and-white--they're Chinese, end of story, and there is no room for reasonable minds to differ. Do you want to volunteer to edit those pages? Red Slash 08:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

   I'm equally sure that those very same Puertorriqueños, if faced with a situation in which (legal) nationality mattered, e.g., being arrested in another country, would be waving their blue passports in the face of every official and demanding that their American nationality be respected. Nationality (in the legal sense) is about whose laws you are—and are not—subject to, and which nation is legally obligated to protect you from abuses by other states. It's not about which nation you wished existed or wished would protect you or which one feels like home to you.

   The same is true for Kurds: they have a nation that is supposed to protect them, and which nation that is depends very much on which side of the border they happen to live on. If you're a Kurd who happens to be a (legal) national of Iraq, then only Iraq has the right and the duty to protect you. Kurdistan isn't a nation and therefore cannot, and no other nation has that relationship with that Kurd. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And none of that is Wikipedia's problem, or mine, at least in this respect. That is their "Nationality", as usually defined in the real world. I am aware of the complex identity issues and that they need to be reflected in text. The point, as explained one might have thought, is to define a term, "Nationality", from the outset – in the way that the world generally does, re passports and which embassy you would go to if in trouble overseas, for better or worse – and then have clarity and consistency in the use of that description in an infobox field. Far more problems are created on WP pages when you allow that one-word description to mean whatever any passing ethno-nationalist flag-waver wants it mean on that individual page, even if there might be legitimate real-world problems in a few cases. Do you think this kind of random micro-description is the way forward, for example, User:Red Slash? And are you volunteering to edit that page? N-HH talk/edits 23:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the Puerto Ricans (it seems odd to use the Spanish word and then capitalize it) would rely on their citizenship, not their nationality. Red Slash 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. International laws about nationality, not citizenship, is what requires other countries to respect the USA's involvement in these people's (hypothetical) diplomatic problems.

I admit that this is an arcane little detail that doesn't matter to most people (because most people are both nationals and citizens of exactly one state), but it is actually nationality that matters in this situation. (The essential difference is that nationality is about nations deciding which one of them is responsible for you, and citizenship is about your role in shaping the [Old French] "cite" [the source of the word citizenship].) If you read the article on Nationality, you'll even find a list reliable sources that explain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (nationality)

1. Oppose Nationality "differs technically and legally from citizenship". Some nationalities are shared by several states, some nation states have significant minorities of a different nationality, some nationalities do not have a national state at all. Enforcing wikipedia to have a a 1-to-1 relation between states and nationalities misrepresents the reality. More importantly, wikipedia represents the sources. If the sources say that a person has a certain nationality, this is what we report, whether this nationality has a state, and whether this state is recognized in any way by the UN. Writing anything contradicting reliable sources is WP:OR. “WarKosign” 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation". This RfC has been raised as a result of a lack of consensus on the nationality to be used for citizens of the UK, which is a union of several different nations. As the aforementioned WP article Nationality acknowledges, the meaning: is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Kurds, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit and Māori). There is longstanding guidance on the subject at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. The 2011 UK census required people to state what national identity they regarded themselves as being: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British (as well as non-UK identities), multiple identities were permitted. The results (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) showed that a minority of UK citizens regard themselves as British, either exclusively or in combination with another identity. The census demonstrates that the proposed policy would not be an appropriate solution in the case of the UK, and the existing practice should remain. One size does not fit all. FF-UK (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. I understand the frustration of people edit warring over whether somebody is British or Scottish, or Greek or Macedonian, but I don't believe this proposal is the answer. For a start, many article subjects were born, lived and died long before the UN was created. And it would be seriously jarring to have to arbitrarily confer on somebody who died 1000 years ago the 'nationality' of a state they could never have conceived of. My own suggestion would be accept that 'nationality' does not equal 'citizenship' and 'nation' does not equal 'nation state'. So for living and recently dead people, we can separately describe their nationality and citizenship. For long dead people, then a self-attributed nationality is probably the only sensible thing to give, and that might well be a nationality that no longer exists. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Strongly oppose, if I were ever to have a WP article devoted to me then the only acceptable nationality would be Scottish, and do not assume that means I support the SNP, they are totally misguided.71.228.66.131 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
5. I Agree with all the reasoning expressed above. I have come across a lot of arguments about Armenian nationality being placed in articles dealing with persons born it the Ottoman empire,, or having parents who were born in the Ottoman empire. Does an Ottoman-era Armenian cease being an Armenian when the land he was living in became the Turkish republic? Or is the father still an Armenian because he was born in 1910, but his son not an Armenian because he was born in 1940? What happens to Turk, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, etc., in this proposed "nationality to refer to an independent state" context? There are nations without independent states, there are nations divided between independent states, there are independent nation states, and there are independent states containing multiple nations. Having a fixed rule will not work because there are so many varying definitions of nationhood. The point of an article should be to tell the reader about the subject of that article, so in many cases it will be appropriate to describe a person's national identity by their nation rather than by their citizenship because nationality does not mean the same thing in multi-nation states as it does in single-nation states. Also, people can change their citizenship, and states, especially ones containing multiple nationalities, have a habit of vanishing from history. I think these things need to be decided on a case by case basis, but putting together some guidelines and precedents would also help things. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose: the issues of nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, race, and all the like are far to complex and nuanced for a single "one-size fits all" definition. Anything which says "Only people that meet XYZ conditions can claim ABC nationality" which are as broad as this fail to understand what a complex world this is, and this is a fundamentally bad idea for that reason. --Jayron32 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose There are too many definitions of nationality by too many sources for it to be a useful term. We should more specific terms like "citizen of", "born in" or "identifies as". CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose – "Nation" is a complicated word. It is best to avoid it altogether, as its multiple meanings make it useless in these types of contexts. RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

   @RGloucester: On that basis would you support my suggestion (below, in the "Change the word" section) that we either remove Nationality from infoboxes or change it for the word Citizenship? WaggersTALK 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

9. Oppose because it isn't Wikipedia's job to try to redefine words for our own convenience. A ridiculous suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose We should follow the general Wikipedia principle. What do reliable sources say? If reliable sources call a person 'Kurdish', then Wikipedia should also describe the person as Kurdish, even though there is no country associated with that nationality. LK (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
11. As noted in following discussion. Collect (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose Really awful idea, presumably based on a misunderstanding of the constitution of the UK. This is admittedly complex but it may be worth reading up on it before making any more suggestions like this one. --John (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
13. Of course not. Nationality ain't "belonging" to a sovereign state. And the proposal is even worse than that because it suggests that the state (if modern) must be a UN member in order to receive recognition. Wow. Palestinians and Kosovars and Romani and First Nations people and Catalans and Kurds and ... etc. are already discriminated against enough. Red Slash 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose Diktats such as this, works counter to common sense and consensus building. Anecdotally yes their does appear to be edit warring with regards to British/Scottish nationality e.g. Gerard Butler and Andy Murray, brought about because of the referendum earlier this year, however I expect this to abate once the passions awakened by this event dampen down. Even in those cases and in even cases where I would expect greater friction (e.g. Nikola Tesla, he's Austrian the successor state of the nation he was born in, Croatian the successor state of the territory that he was born in, Serbian since even though he was born in Croatian territory he was Orthodox and not Catholic, American the nation he emigrated to) the articles as they appear to the reader are sensible and coherent. Yes there may be conflict behind the scenes as an examination of the talk page, and hidden messages will show, however the articles will gravitate to a consensus that the majority of editors can agree on, and does not intrude into the reader's experience.--KTo288 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose This simply will not work. Nationality is complex and personal. Some BLPs would end up with nationalities that the subject expressly rejects. Also, if we are to restrict it in this way then we should equally insist that every nationality is cited. Is the exact citizenship of most people known? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose This contradicts established Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:RS. "Nationality" of a person is whatever reliable sources say it is. Anything else is original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose arbitrary action which fails to comply with fundamental policies WP:V / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose Frankly, given the whole discussion comes about from objection to discussing Scottishness as a nationality, it has a somewhat nasty, racist taste to it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose These issues should be dealt with by consensus on relevant talk pages on a case by case basis using the best available RS. I take User:Volunteer Mareks approach on this as eminently sensible. Irondome (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose — I don't really see the point of defining "nationality" in such restrictive terms. If anything, it may come back to bite us all in our collective asses as a means for certain people to delegitimize the aspirations for self-determination among ethnic groups such as the Kurds or the Tibetans. Also, "we should only allow states which are Member states of the United Nations"; so what should we use for places like Palestine or Kosovo? I don't think I'd feel comfortable referring to Kosovo Albanians as "Serbian" or Northern Irish people as "British", particularly not in an infobox, which to an outsider may appear very authoritative in its designations. No, this just opens up a whole new can of worms for very little potential benefit. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose The world is not box-shaped and this is another attempt to over-simplify a complex and contentious topic. Ben MacDui 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose this simplistic and inappropriate concept, attempting to apply a Procrustean solution to a complex situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose Nationality is not defined by the sovereign state in which the subject lives, was born and/or which passport they hold. Nationality is one's national origin or identity, and belonging to a particular nation; a nation; an ethnic or racial group. Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose, nationality is far too complex and thorny a problem for a simple cookie-cutter policy like this to make any sense. Let us decide difficult cases on a case-by-case basis, based on what the sources say, like we do everywhere else. Lankiveil @ Alt ^{(speak to me)} 06:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC).
25. Oppose - Not only members of the United Nations are relevant nations. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose - I don't support this type of blanket approach. You can belong to a stateless nation, and if reliable sources describe that person as such, then that's what we should put in the appropriate article.--Slon02 (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
27. Aside from the obvious BLP breaches involved in ascribing a nationality that people consider incorrect; There are various nationalistic/secession disputes in which Wikipedia would no longer be seen as a neutral voice. I'm not disputing that the current system is complex, but it is our job to explain the complex not to oversimplify to the point of getting things wrong. Many calculations would appear simpler if we decreed that Pi was equal to 3.00, but our aim is accuracy not simplicity. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
28. We should generally follow what reliable sources associate a person with, although if there are none then the respective sovereign state is a sensible default position. There are too many historical and political special cases for as simple a rule as this to be of much use.  Sandstein  09:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note - Please don't post Support or Oppose, as your 'votes' are already placed & numbered underneath the 'support'/'oppose' subsections. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Note Historically People have always posted Support or Oppose even in sections labeled for that purpose. Just because it annoys one user dosn't mean you should stop doing it. You should stop doing it iff you want to. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Though, not using Support or Oppose encourages editors to express a detailed opinion rather than perhaps just giving a simple vote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (nationality)

This is Forum shopping, see Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Where did it all go wrong?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Where's the harm? There's only 2 possible results, here - 1) a consensus or 2) no consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not forum shopping at all. WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom has never been policy it is just an essay written by a small number of editors, with dissenting opinion suppressed. I am looking for wide community consensus not just for the UK but for all countries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I referred to a previously-started discussion, not an essay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this proposal, what should be written as the nationality of those born in states that are not members of the UN, such as Palestinians? I suppose this proposal would strip Pope Francis of his Argentinian nationality, even though it's unclear which one should be used, since Vatican is not a recognized UN member state and even if it was, "Vaticanian" is not a nationality. “WarKosign” 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually - Vatican City is a member of two of the oldest international organizations, which are now specifically agencies under the UN (ITC (1865 founded, Vatican City has been a member since 1929) - now ITU, and the UPU (founded 1874, Vatican City a member since 1929) (status disputed 1870 to 1929). It issues passports, has legates to other nations, and is a "nationality" by law. Sorry to break the example :) Collect (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

1. You are confusing citizenship and nationality. I never said there is no Vatican citizenship, only that there is no such nationality. There is no "Vatican nation", there are no "native Vaticanians". Everybody in Vatican were born elsewhere and have some other nationality, about half of them keep dual citizenship.
2. The proposal as it was written was to include only nationalities of states which are members of the UN, which Vatican is not. “WarKosign” 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I fear you elide the fact that the UN gives Vatican City "permanent observer status". Your standards would have said Switzerland was not a "nation" until 2002. And that Germany (BDR and DDR) were not "nations" until 1973, so people born in them had no "nationality." As that is clearly an absurd result, we accept that being a member of UN agencies indicates nationhood. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're replying to me - this is not my standard, I oppose the idea that UN has anything to do with a person's nationality. “WarKosign” 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is no different from 'Place of birth' in a few cases this might be difficult to determine from available sources, although there will be a factual answer, but is most cases determining nationality the way that I suggest will be quite straightforward. Allowing any group of people to claim to have their own nationality will not solve any problems. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but place of birth =/= nationality, and sovereign state of citizenship =/= nationality. A nation and a sovereign state are not identical concepts. Often enough they are, but there exist MANY times when a group of people are reliably (and justifiably) thought of as a "nation" and which are not identical in membership to "citizenship" within a sovereign state. The way you dismiss the situation by implying a lack of ingenuity on the part of people who meet that definition is problematic. When you say "Allowing any group of people to claim to have their own nationality..." makes it seem like any such claim cannot be in earnest, or that we as editors cannot adjudge the difference between an earnest, historical, and justfiable claim of non-state nationhood (by such groups as say the Iroquois, Tibet, Kurds, Basque) with those of people who clearly do not have such a valid claim (such as political stunts like Principality of Sealand or the like) misses the point. That's why we make earnest self-identification as the most important claim there can be. If a person earnestly identifies themselves as Spanish or Basque, we respect that identification, without making our own arbitrary distinctions about which kinds of ethnic identifications are valid, and which are not. --Jayron32 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Allowing smaller groups of people with less autonomy or independence (such as the Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Kurds, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit and Māori) does not solve any problems. There will always be smaller groups within those groups which some individuals will want to identify with. Not all Scots are the same, are we to have Highlanders and Lowlanders and what about Essex man? It will be a never-ending conflict. All the states of the US, which is a federation have more right to nationhood than any of the groups mentioned above.

Please note that this is not an attempt to suppress the identity of anyone. People will still be able to be described as Scottish, Inuit, a London Boy, a Jew or whatever we like but in the text, where we can explain the reasons behind the description. The problem that we have in many articles are that groups are using 'nationality' as a way to claim ownership of the good and the great and to support various separatist movements. Let us just treat nationality like 'date of birth' or 'place of birth'. It should be a simple well-defined, easily verifed fact, not a political statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not proposing that historical characters must be given nationalities based on current states, only that when current states are applicable that we use only independent states, not regions within them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed how many editors are raising complications that don't even arise in the case of James Laidlaw Maxwell? In most cases there won't be complications, such as have been raised, and when they do arise, they can be discussed individually on a needs be basis. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you mentioned "most cases" I thought of China, 91% of the population are "Han Chinese", but there are ~112M people of 55 other nationalities. Even if the suggested criteria is correct for 64M citizens of the UK, it is wrong for double that many in China alone. “WarKosign” 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what about James Laidlaw Maxwell? It would be a great help if you could give us your opinion on a particular case. He was a British national under both the law of the time and the existing law. Would you describe his nationality as British or Scottish? Have a read about him please. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources giving his nationality/ethnicity, but since he was born in Scotland if I had to guess I would go with Scottish. The guess is of course unusable on WP. “WarKosign” 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, No need to guess. He was Scottish and British, and his nationality was British. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know, are there reliable sources saying "James Laidlaw Maxwell was of British nationality" ? If you're concluding from some rules yourself, maybe you're correct, but it's WP:OR and is as useless as my guess. “WarKosign” 19:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest we retire James Laidlaw Maxwell as an example for this discussion. I think he has long passed the point of usefulness for this discussion, which is in danger of becoming about the nationality of James Laidlaw Maxwell rather than how we deal with all the different nuances of nationality. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was about him from the beginning. “WarKosign” 11:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't the issue really about James Clerk Maxwell, not James Laidlaw Maxwell? The former is much more famous, therefore providing more opportunities to fight over what nationality he was.  :) The latter article doesn't even have an infobox, and I have seen discussions of what nationality should be stated in the infobox, so I'm thinking we are really talking about JCM. In my opinion, the sources seem to support the "nationality" of Scottish, though I would be in favor of doing away with the "nationality" parameter altogether (perhaps just for controversial cases) in favor of just saying where the person was born, resided and died. As for Pope Francis, I hope that part of the discussion is just a joke. He didn't stop being Argentinian just because he got a live-in job in another country. Neutron (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

From our readers' perspective

The most important thing from our readers' perspective is that they know what we mean; what verified fact we are informing them of. The proposed policy makes this quite clear; we are telling them the independent state to whose laws the person is subject.

There may be other meanings of the word 'nationality' in use but, if we go beyeond the proposed definition (which I believe is how the term is most commonly understood) how will our readers know what we are telling them? Do we show the smallest group that has ever claimed nationhood of which they are a member? Do we allow people to choose their own nationality by basing it on self-identification? Is it the group of people who claim ownership to this great person, or the group on whom we can foist ownership of the evil? Is it just promotion from some separatist movement? Maybe it just the consensus of the day? How are our readers to know what we are trying to tell them?

Ther may still be problems with the proposed definition if souces are not clear but at least our readers will know what we intend to tell them. I cannot think of any other definition of 'nationality' that is usable and having no definition of waht is to be put onto a field in an infobox makes the field completely pointless. The only other rational proposal is never to talk of 'nationality' at all.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope - you aren't giving a 'verified fact' at all - instead, you are asserting that your particular definition of 'nationality' (which may not be shared by our readers) is the only correct one. Do I need to explain exactly how many Wikipedia policies that violates? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not asserting anything. Im only suggesting that, in Wikipedia article, we stick to a well-defined and easily verified meaning of the word, especially in infoboxes. If we do not do that then we cannot use the term at all. What can it possible mean if we are free to decribe a person born in France to French parents, who holds a French passport and has no dual nationality and has never been naturalsied into another nationality as having German nationality? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are today's news items from the British Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30374247 (British base jumper) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30375335 (British businessman) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30383202 (two British tourists) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-30378006 (missing British man). How many more of these do we need to convince some people here that British nationality does exist and that it is in widespread use? 109.152.249.9 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin wrote: "The proposed policy makes this quite clear; we are telling them the independent state to whose laws the person is subject." Really? Surely a person is subject to the laws of the country of which they are a citizen, but also the jurisdiction they happen to be in at any point in time. An American in many US states can legitimately carry a pistol, but an American (other than one to whom special rights had been granted, such as the President's Secret Service bodyguard during a Presidential visit) who tries to carry a pistol in the UK is going to end up in jail, very rapidly, and for a long time. Any more woolly thoughts to offer to us Martin? FF-UK (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IN BBC-speak, "British" = resident of the UK but not English (or at least not from the south of England). An "English athlete" is a successful athlete from England. A "British athlete" is a successful athlete from Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland. A "British football fan" is an English football thug who has broken the law. A "British tourist" is a drunken English tourist abroad. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I make this more clear? I am not referring to how we describe someone, 'British', 'Cornish', 'European' might all be valid and correct descriptions. I am only talking about specific claims of nationality, in an infobox under the 'nationality' field for example or if we were to say, 'this person's nationality is Cornish'.

The anonymous unsigned contribution above is a particularly unhelpful one, There is no question that describing a person who comes from Cornwall as Cornish is valid, as is describing a native of any European country as European, but Cornwall is a county, Europe is a continent, neither are, by any stretch of the imagination, nations. Therefore, neither can have a nationality attached to them. But, this is a straw man argument, no one, as far as I can tell, has suggested otherwise. What we should be concerned with is the nationality associated with those nations which are not independent, but nevertheless are clearly identifiable as nations, typically England, Scotland and Wales, and anywhere else with comparable characteristics. FF-UK (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget to sign above. Who decides which are nations and which are something else; editors here? You have consistently failed to explain to me why Scotland, which is part of a Unitary state should have a nationality and Texas, which is a part of a Federation and which has a nationalist movement should not. You simple brush aside Cornish nationalism by saying they are 'just a county'. By what right do you make these decisions?Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We use sources, I have provided sources for Scotland being a nation (eg the speech from former Prime minister Gordon Brown in defence of the union, and for Scottish being a nationality (the Lord Lyon King of Arms states: "this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality." See http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/236.html). I have also provided a source to explain to you why Texas cannot be considered a nation, the decision of the Supreme Court on that matter. "In the Constitution, the term "state" most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A "state," in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country." I have not seen any official sources from you which support your claims about Texas and Cornwall, and I would point out that the previously referenced England and Wales census reports that only a small minority, 14%, of the population of Cornwall claims Cornish national identity. Sources Martin Hogbin, sources. FF-UK (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin, you did not limit your initial proposal to just infoboxes, and many articles do not have infoboxes anyway. Maybe a direction to take would be to revise the text used in infoboxes, rework it so that there is not a connection made between citizenship and nationality. So someone in an infobox can be described as a citizen of Turkey can still also be called a Kurd, and so on. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh .. Sorry. I see things along those lines are being suggested below. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Change the word

To most people, nationality and citizenship are interchangeable, and perhaps the word "nationality" was used originally when the original editors meant "citizenship". According to some in the discussion above, "nationality" is a fluffy, transient thing that an individual can seemingly make up and change on a whim. As such it can never be pinned down and perhaps doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article about them unless their nationality is something that they're particularly known for. Citizenship is much more clear cut and definitive, and I suspect that's what the creators of {{Infobox Person}} and the like really meant when they used "nationality". So instead of quibbling about what "nationality" may or may not mean, let's settle on the meaning we want (something definitive, robust and reliably source-able) and use the word that best describes that concept. Let's drop "nationality" in favour of "citizenship" so we can stop the silly arguments. WaggersTALK 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's about citizenship, I think there is very little to discuss. A person holding a British passport may consider/declare themselves to be Scottish, a Highlander, a Nairnshireman or anything else as they like while the fact of having a certain citizenship is official, registered and hard to dispute. Citizenship should not be limited to UN member states, since there are exceptions such as micronations. “WarKosign” 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I contest that "to most people nationality and citizenship are interchangeable". For many people around the world, they would not consider their nationality to be simply the sovereign state they are official citizens of. Now, whether or not we want Wikipedia to report citizenship or nationality, both, neither, or some combination thereof, is an unrelated issue. But you CANNOT say that people consider the two concepts similar or identical. For you they may feel that way, but you can't demand that you're own personal perspective is universal. There are a multitude of perspectives on this... --Jayron32 14:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I also don't agree that "to most people, nationality and citizenship are interchangeable", and don't have much to add to Jayron32's comment in that regard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Now, whether or not we want Wikipedia to report citizenship or nationality, both, neither, or some combination thereof, is an unrelated issue." - no, this is the very crux of the issue being discussed above. If we've been saying "nationality" when what we've meant is "citizenship" all along, we have a very straightforward way forward. On the other hand, if nationality is so ambiguous and poorly defined, it has no place in an infobox and we have another very straightforward way ahead. WaggersTALK 15:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But what we mean is not necessarily citizenship, or necessarily nationality. It can be one, the other, both, or neither, depending on the context. Both citizenship and nationality can be important for understanding the biography of a person. So in some cases can ethnicity, race, gender, and a whole slew of other personal identifiers. Sometimes those traits are important, sometimes they are not, and sometimes more than one of them are, sometimes in different ways, and sometimes none of them are important. It isn't helpful to say "We report this one and only one personal characteristic, we report it all the time, and we don't report any of the others". THAT'S the big problem here. There is not a simple solution to this, because it is not a simple issue. People want it to be simple and organized and it just isn't. Wishing it were so doesn't make it so. --Jayron32 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Of couse life is not simple and no one is trying to make it so but we must be clear what we are telling pepole. If anyone would like to come up with an unambiguous term that we can use as a field in an infobox to indicated the independent state(s) to which a person belongs I would be more than happy to use it, and to delete the imbiguous and popularly misunderstood fields of 'Nationality' and 'Citizenship'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is there such a resistance to the usage of British or United Kingdom in the intros & infoboxes of so many UK bios? England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales make up the United Kingdom, so what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

UK (and quite a few other states) make up the world, so why not say that your nationality is Earthian ? It's a matter of personal preference. If a UK citizen may decide to declare their nationality as British or as English/Scottish/Irish, both are equally fine since it's a personal matter of feeling belong to a nation. The citizenship is British in either case. “WarKosign” 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But why is there resistance on Wikipedia to have British/United Kingdom in these articles? either in place of or along side English/England, Scottish/Scotland, Welsh/Wales & Northern Irish/Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being British, if this is what a person calls themselves. “WarKosign” 16:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are we putting so much stock into what a person calls themselves? If one's a human & declares he/she's not a human, does that have to mean he/she isn't a human? These people who were born & live in the UK, are British, whether they like it or not. You can declare your red car is coloured blue, but it's still a red car. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Nationality is something that is decided by the states with wich you have some kind of legal connection. In most cases it is very simple, you have the nationality of the independent state in which you are born and the same as your parents. In more complex cases the relevant nationality laws will decide but in all cases it is a matter of fact rather than something you can decide for yorself. That is the reason for wanting to define nationality in this way; we no longer need to have arguments about what someone called themselves or what someone else called them.

WarKosign, I think you are confusing nationality with ethnicity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using 'citizenship' instead of 'nationality' does not help much. In the UK the situation regarding citizenship is quite complicated with citizenship being a sub-category of nationality, see British nationality. No dobt there are complications in many other countries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My answer to GoodDay's question is that the majority of people in the UK have long regarded themselves as belonging not to the UK, but to the constituent country of the UK from which they are from. As in other nations, national pride is a significant factor in the lives of many peoples and therefore the nation they identify with is also of significance. However, we do not need to speculate on this, there is hard data. In 2011, for the first time, quantitative data was gathered by the UK censuses which required people to state what national identity they regarded themselves as being: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British (as well as non-UK identities), multiple identities were permitted. The results (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) showed that a only minority of UK citizens regard themselves as British, either exclusively or in combination with another identity. The majority identify themselves as belonging to their own constituent nation. The actual percentages vary, but are all in the region of 70% of English, Scottish and Welsh residents identifying themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh respectively (rather than British). The area with the highest percentage (just under 40%) of those identifying as British is Inner London, which the census analysis identifies as having a high proportion of immigrants, suggesting that immigrants are more likely than natives to identify as British. FF-UK (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But, they're British. My concern is the resistance being shown here (at Wikipedia) by editors. Again, you declare yourself a Martian, but that doesn't make you a Martian. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, you may declare yourself a Martian if you wish, but I am English. FF-UK (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You're British & there's nothing you can do about. But, this is Wikipedia & so yes, you certainly can (and are) doing something about :( GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It least, your nationality is 'British', FF-UK. You can describe yourself any way that you like. If people could change their nationality just by thinking of themselves differently there would not be a long fence with armed guards separating the US from Mexico. Mexicans would be able to say, 'I now consider myself to have US nationality' and just walk accrosss the border as US nationals. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32, you say, 'nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, race, and all the like are far to complex and nuanced for a single "one-size fits all" definition'. You are absolutely correct, of course, that is exactly why I am trying to avoid doing this. Citizenship, ethnicity, race, and all the like should be discussed in the text, based, as always, on what sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So why should nationality be treated differently ? If anything in the list of attributes is relatively simple it's the citizenship - having a certain citizenship is a well-defined, documented and verifyable fact. “WarKosign” 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, if you can proove that you are correct in saying that, 'having a certain citizenship is a well-defined, documented and verifyable fact' we would have a simple solution; just give a person's citizenship and remove all reference to 'nationality' from infoboxes and direct statements, but I fear it may not be so simple, have a look at the British Nationality article, which shows that in at least one case it is more complicated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean British nationality law ? The law is complex, but if we have a source saying that someone aquired a British citizenship at birth or at some later date - it's a simple statement that is not open to interpretation. “WarKosign” 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See, now we're getting into language issue. What it means to be a "British national" is a specific and legally defined thing, in many ways in this one context in means what "citizenship" often means in other countries. It's a word choice here (one ensconced in law), however one can be both simultaneously a legally defined "British national" and also be Scottish. To imply that one must choose between one or the other, or that Wikipedia must only define people as one and ignore the other, is a major problem. Why must we be forced to make an artificial choice between the two: Cannot one be both a legal British national, and of Scottish nationality (or English or Welsh or Northern Irish)? Being one does not exclude being another at the same time. Ethnic classifications are not either-or propositions, and yet people seem to be demanding that they are. But back to the crux of the issue: What we're talking about is the use of the word "national" (nationality, etc.) in the specific context of the UK, and in the more specific context of this one law: But the existence of this law does NOT make us ignore the very real issues of nationality outside of the British context, nor does it make us ignore the very real issues of various ethnicities within the UK itself. Demanding that we ONLY classify people because one sovereign state uses one specific word (in a somewhat idiosyncratic way, I might add) is a bit off... --Jayron32 04:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for at least getting involved in a rational discussion but again you misunderstand me, I am not trying to classsify anyone. The idea that all people can be completely classified with a single term is obviously absurd and it is not what I am trying to do. I am talking about how we decide what to put in the 'Nationality' field in an infobox. The idea of an infobox is that it gives basic, simple, easily verified, facts about the person, and does not deal with compex isssues of self-identity or how you are considered to be by the rest of the world. Take, for example the, Place of birth' field in an infobox and consider the case of a man who was born in London at 6:00 in the evening but next tmorning was taken back to his home in Paris where he lived and worked for the rest of his life. In every respect, this man would be considered a Parisian and that would be a perfectly good description of him but the 'Place of birth' infobox field would have to show London, because that is where he was born. His ethnicity, self-identified group, how he was regarded by the world, legal nationality, place where he was best known, might all be different places, and these should all be mentioned in the text (based of course on what reliable sources say) but none of that can make his 'Place of birth' anything other than London.

If we treat the nationality field differently, how will our readers know, which paricular informal meaning of nationality WP editors have chosen for that person. All Im am suggesting is that we standardise the 'Nationality' filed in an infobox so that readers know what it is telling them. My only agenda is to keep WP factual and neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

British nationality law "is the law of the United Kingdom that concerns citizenship". In the context of the article nationality and citizenship are used interchangeably. In other contexts the word nationality has other meanings, therefore we better stick to citizenship, which is unambiguous. One can be a British citizen ("national") and belong to the Scottish ethnic group ("nationalility"), there is no contradiction between the two affiliations except the confusion between the words. “WarKosign” 05:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fairly obviously (the clue is in the name), British nationality law is the law of the United Kingdom that concerns citizenship of all the people who have British nationality. The British govenment clearly have no power to determine the citizenship of anyone else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Both |nationality= and |citizenship= have been available in that infobox since 2007 or so. If "nationality" is too difficult to source, or if you've got disputes between people who think that different levels of nations ought to count more than others, then stop using it, and put |citizenship= in the box instead.

Also, for the dispute at the essay, some people might like to read what the UK's government says at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/measuring-equality/equality/ethnic-nat-identity-religion/national-identity/index.html It appears that the Office of National Statistics believes that "Scottish" is properly considered a national identity rather than a nationality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

One option worth considereing would be to insist on strict and authoritative sourcing for all statements of nationality or citizenship. By this I do not mean that we find in the book, 'Great inventors of Cornwall' as line saying, 'Joe Soap' was a Cornish chemist', or a book saying 'Fred Bloggs was a British statesman' but a clear and specific statement of nationality, for example 'Ola Nordmann had Norwegian nationality' or 'Ola Nordmann was a Norwegian national', or 'Unce Sam was a US citizen'. That would conform to the highest standards of WP and might resolve this dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that such statements tend not to be made unless nationality and/or citizenship isn't 'obvious' - see how long it takes you to find an explicit statement that for example David Cameron is a British citizen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So what do you suggest that we put in the infobox under 'nationality'? Do we just make something up? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should avoid the term "nationality" entirely , since it can mean either citizenship or ethnicity. We should use ethnicity and/or citizenship to describe people.

In case of a hypothetical Scottish UK citizen there is no argument that his ethnicity is Scottish and citizenship is British, while you can argue for a long time what his nationality is.

It works for ethnic minorities, a state with several different ethnic groups, an ethnicity split between several states, etc. I do not see a case that ethnicity/citizenship combo doesn't cover. Do you ?

"John Doe was a French musician with German citizenship who lived and worked in Italy". “WarKosign” 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, I agree with you that if there is no agreement on how to define nationality in an info box, then it should be abolished altogether as it becomes wide open to abuse. On a side note, there is no such thing as Scottish ethnicity. There is a major ethnic fault line running between the Highlands and the Lowlands, with the Highlanders being Irish and the Lowlanders being English. There is however a modern Scottish national identity. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, infoboxes are supposed to be quick summaries of what's in the article. When the question of nationality or citizenship or ethnicity is complex or controversial so that it cannot be included in the infobox in a manner which is not controversial (in good faith, at least), misleading, incomplete, or excessively lengthy, then it should simply be left out and set out at reasonable length in the body of the article. That's not just true for nationality/citizenship, it's true for any information in an infobox. The summary nature of infoboxes far too often causes them to be battlegrounds and that's not good for the encyclopedia (or for those of us who work in dispute resolution). Anyone up for an attempt to include this concept at MOS:INFOBOX? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I agree entirely. In the case that brought this matter here in the first place, the nationality field is being abused by Scottish separatists who are trying to usurp the sovereign British nationality with a subordinate Scottish nationality. The solution would appear to be to remove the nationality field altogether and to deal with the subject's origins in the main body of the text. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does this nonsense about "abused by Scottish separatists" come from? Do you have one iota of evidence that this is a real issue? If not, then do not keep attempting to set it up as a straw man. FF-UK (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

IP 109.152.248.204 why do you keep changing your identity? Yesterday you were posting as 86.180.32.141, before that it was 109.152.249.9, and you first became involved in this subject as 86.145.98.85. These are all BT WiFi public hotspots. Are you doing this to confuse other WP editors? If not, then please register so that your identity becomes consistent. Thank you. FF-UK (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC),

This is just Unionist-ultras trying to remove any modern reference to English/Scottish/Welsh. It happens all over wikipedia, usally to Enlgish related articles. Nothing but modern politics wiggling it's way into wikipedia.--86.159.27.234 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That statement from another BT WiFi hotspot IP is as groundless as the other IP's statement above. There is no evidence for either extreme and making such claims does not help rational discussion. FF-UK (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is evidence. Why do you think this discussion is so heated? And the proposal is not restricted just to the UK. Turkish "ultras" (to borrow the anon's word) have been for decades trying to remove any modern reference to Kurds or Armenians or Greeks in Turkish related articles. And Greek "ultras" do it for Greek or Cyprus related articles. And I'm sure Russian "ultras" do their bit too, and Albanians, .... the list is probably endless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any Greek editors, even if misguided, that pursue this specific type of activity, related to suppression of national origins. Care to show some diffs about that? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody was trying to suppress Scottish identity. The subject James Clerk Maxwell is described as Scottish in the lead, and nobody has been challenging that. Editor FF-UK is however suppressing the subject's British nationality in the info box by usurping it with a Scottish nationality, when no such sovereign nationality exists. The correct way to do it would be to have the subject described as Scottish in the lead and to have his nationality stated correctly as British in the info box. It would then be correct and balanced all round. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Which meaning of the word "nationality" are you using, ethnicity or citizenship ? If we do not use the ambiguous word "nationality", there is far less dispute. "James Clerk Maxwell had Scottish ethnicity and British citizenship." Any objection ? “WarKosign” 08:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Warkosign, There was no such status as 'British citizen' in Maxwell's time. It only came into existence in 1983. Maxwell was a 'British national'. As regards Scottish ethnicity, there is no such thing. The Scottish Lowlanders, of which Maxwell was one, have English ethnicity. Maxwell is already described as Scottish in the main body of the text, and nobody is objecting. The objection is about usurping the sovereign nationality in the info box with 'Scottish nationality' which has no administrative signifance. If agreement can't be reached as regards the info box, then it's best to remove the nationality from the info box altogether, just as you suggest. That would leave Maxwell described as 'Scottish' in the main body of the text, in line with most modern sources. Nobody is objecting to describing Maxwell as Scottish. The objection is about the words 'British Citizen' and 'Scottish national'. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP, Maxwell's relation with the UK was what is called citizenship today, therefore today we can say that he was a citizen. Maybe you are correct and at that time it was called being a national (as it is sometimes called today), but the term is ambiguous (could mean either citizenship or ethnicity) and the proposal is to use other, unambiguous terms instead.

According to this article the Scottish people "are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland", so how can you say there is no Scottish ethnicity ? “WarKosign” 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to read up on your history of Scotland. There is no such thing as Scottish ethnicity. You'll find that the Lowlanders are English and the Highlanders are Irish, although that is perhaps somewhat of a simplification, because there has been a lot of mixing over the centuries. Even the great Scottish hero William Wallace was English. On the other matter, on what manner of reasoning can you deny that Maxwell has British nationality while claiming that he has Scottish nationality? British nationality, a term which is still in use today and about which there is legislation, is his sovereign nationality. See this website https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/overview 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a bad understanding of history, as it assumes that no ethnic group can ever change or evolve, that no new ethnic groups ever get created, old ethnicities die out, etc. What a strange way to think about the world, that all ethnic groups have existed statically since God created the earth, and haven't moved or changed or anything in all that time. Of course, modern Scots and modern Irish ethnic groups evolved from common ancestors, and the influence of the English and later Normans on Lowland/Southern Scottish people is well documented, but those historical truths doesn't mean that Scottish ethnicity doesn't exist. Of course it does. Else, we could claim that the English don't exist, because they're really just Northern Germans & Southern Danes, and we should just count the English as a subset of Danish nationality for that reason. That's self-evidently silly. Just as your assertion is. --Jayron32 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayron, An English speaking British ethnic group has evolved from all the various Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Dane inputs. There are still remnants in the Highlands and Islands, North Wales, and Northern Ireland, that are sufficiently different from the mainstream British ethnic grouping that they might be considered as culturally diverse, but even they are very much diluted from their original form, and well integrated into British society. There is no such a thing as Scottish ethnicity. Anybody who has ever worked amongst British people could tell you that Scots integrate perfectly, and that they are no more diverse from the Kent and Sussex man, than is the Scouser or the Geordie. Read Billy Connolly on the matter http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/feb/17/billy-connolly-not-vote-scottish-independence-referendum 109.152.248.204 (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Billy Connolly is a funny man, but he's hardly an expert on the history of the Scottish people... --Jayron32 05:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32, The blending and creating of a new ethnic grouping that you are talking about above, took place in an all British context within the British Isles. It is not the case, as you seem to be implying, that a unique Scottish ethnicity emerged and diverged from the rest of the British Isles. It's true that in Victorian times, the Lowland Scots, while on the one hand becoming ever more closely integrated with the English, adopted aspects of the Gaelic Highland culture, such as the tartan, the kilts, and the bagpipes, but that is all very superficial in the context. If you check out some Lowland Scottish regiments such as The Royal Scots or the King's Own Scottish Borderers, you will discover that their history is not quite as Scottish as you would think. In fact they were never Scottish enough to be allowed to wear kilts. At Edinburgh Castle they always wore tartan trousers as opposed to kilts. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IP 109.152.248.204, as I have pointed out on article page, there is nothing anachronistic about stating Maxwell's citizenship as British. The word citizen is defined as "A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized." which fully encompasses the situation as it stood in Maxwell's day. You cannot just ignore the proper meaning of a word to suit a desire to restrict its use. In the same way you do not need to redefine "nationality", it has a perfectly established meaning as "The status of belonging to a particular nation". With regard to the specific case of Scotland, we know that Scotland is a nation, and has been for over 1000 years. I have referred already to the former Prime Minister's speech which referred to: "whether Scotland is a nation; we are, yesterday, today, and tomorrow", that view is clearly shared by the current Prime minister who has said in a pre-referendum speech: "This is a decision that could break up our family of nations, and rip Scotland from the rest of the UK.". Even Simon Heffer, no fan of Scotland, repeatedly describes Scotland as a nation when writing in the Daily Mail! Note, none of these three eminent people could in any way be described as Scottish nationalists, but they all recognize the status of Scotland as a nation. The long standing status quo in the James Clerk Maxwell article properly and accurately represents Maxwell's status as a British Citizen (Subject) having Scottish nationality. These are facts, everything presented against the status quo is merely opinion unsupported by relevant sources. The boxes in question are "Nationality" (nowhere in the template information is that defined as having the restricted meaning of "sovereign nationality") and "Citizenship" (nowhere in the template information is that defined as having a restricted meaning of excluding the status of "subject"). It is not good practice in a discussion such as this to attempt to redefine words to a specific meaning which suits your personal PoV, provide no references which would support that view, and then go on to conduct your case based on that idiosyncratic interpretation. I wonder why you are even continuing to press this PoV when on the Maxwell article talk page you have already volunteered your acceptance that "Attempts to define nationality at the village pump failed". FF-UK (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not redefining any words. I'm going by the words used in the law. See here https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/overview Maxwell was a British national under both today's law and the law of his own time. So how can you argue that we should put Scottish nationality in the info box as opposed to British nationality? Either put both or do away with the nationality field altogether. Is it not enough for you to have him described as Scottish in the main body of the text? And why do you want to describe him as being a British citizen when under the law at the time he was a British subject? Is it because you think the term 'British citizen' makes it look as though he wasn't really British, but only British on paper? You can use a dictionary to prove that nationality and citizenship mean the same thing, but why not stick with the usages that are actually in use in the context according to the law? Why would you have to call Maxwell a British citizen when he was a British national in law? And why would you call him a Scottish national when he is also a British national? Why would you deny calling him a British national when he was a British national? 109.152.248.204 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• As a North Briton, I want to make clear that it is wrong to be trying to parse out ethnic definitions of "Scottish", "English", &c. One simply won't get anywhere if one tries to define a "Scottish" ethnicity. There is no coherent Scottish ethnicity, no more than there is a coherent English ethnicity. Britain has had so much movement, migration, invasion, &c. that all groups are heavily diluted and jumbled. Britons do not think in terms of ethnicity when they say that someone is "Scottish" or "English". People do not refer to David Cameron is Scottish because he has Scottish ancestry, nor do they call Her Majesty a Scot because her mother was Scottish. Applications of "Scottish" and "English" are cultural and geographical, rather than based on ancestry. People that have lived in Scotland all their lives but that speak with old-fashioned upper-class accents are often not considered "Scottish" by many Scots. These people might be just as "ethnically" Scottish as anyone else, but their cultural origin is in the highly anglicised Scottish upper class, which people perceive as apart from Scotland even though it has been part of Scottish society for centuries. In other words, one simply cannot think in terms of ethnicity when thinking about how to label Britons. One must go based on what reliable sources say, self-identification, and, failing those, pure citizenship. RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I just wish to add to the statements suggesting that this is simply the wikipedia version of a wider effort by UK Unionists to remove as many cultural and national references to Scotland as possible in the wake of the recent independence referendum. It is couched in friendly language, referring to neutrality, and somehow suggesting that this is a broader concern globally rather than focused precisely on the Scottish situation... but as the conversation has progressed, it is bluntly clear that this is about Scotland and the continued assault on Scottish identity by British unionists. As this matter is (despite the fervent wishes of the unionists) still a highly contentious live issue within Scotland and the wider UK, I do not believe that it is appropriate in any way to make a formal ruling in this way; not least one that enforces a colonial position. FDCWint (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It's quite likely that some editors feel there's a devolutionist agenda behind opposition to usage of British/United Kingdom, in these UK bio articles. IMHO, it's best that both sides refrain from accusing each other of political PoV pushing, as such mud-slinging will only cause the discussion to turn ugly & unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I can see your point, the fact is that the IP Address 109.152.248.204 has essentially contributed nothing to Wikipedia other than to crank this particular issue; every contribution in their history is either on this topic, or badgering anyone who has disagreed with them with messages on their talk page - yours and mine included. If there were voices on that side of the debate who were actually engaged with the site in other capacities, it might be easier to accept a more noble motivation. FDCWint (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the question: what are readers interesed in see in the infobox? Several foreign-born Hollywood and Miami residents have American nationality. But I wouldn't be interested to see that a certain actor or sports competitor is American - Hélio Castroneves is Brazilian and Hugh Jackman is Australian. That's what the infobox should say. I guess that's what we call nationality, rather than citizenship. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nationality Tutorials

In response to editor KTo288, I would say that at the moment of writing, the Andy Murray article is done correctly, whereas the Gerard Butler article is done wrongly. There is always a common sense way to do these things, where controversy may arise. Perhaps a wiki-Nationality tutorial class should be set up with worked examples. Let's take Samuel Cunard as an example. I would say that his article is correct as it stands. Nova Scotia was a British colony and a British settlement in Cunard's time. It only federated with Canada two years after Cunard's death. Cunard was born to British parents and was ethnically British himself. Canadian nationality only came into existence in 1921, while Canadian citizenship only came into existence in 1947. As far as I am aware there have been no attempts to ascribe Cunard with Canadian citizenship, but if such attempts were to be made in the future, as could well happen, I would say that they would be misinformed. It would be an attempt to stamp an identity upon a historical person, which that person would never have related to. Likewise every subject can be dealt with using common sense. In Tesla's case, he straddled many fault lines, but looking now at his article (Nikola Tesla), it appears to me to have been done correctly. His national identity is covered in the lead while his locations and citizenship are covered in the info box. There does however appear to be a gap in the info box for the post 1867 Austro-Hungarian Empire period. In modern day cases where an ethnic minority grouping is hostile to the political status quo, then you describe them in the lead according to their preferred designation, avoid nationality in the info box, and simply state the place of birth, using the name of the country as per the existing boundaries. Eg. Mr X is a Kurdish engineer. In the info box, avoid nationality and simply state Born:- Ararat, Turkey. What you should never do is promote in the info box an aspiring nationality that supports a separatist cause, such as Scottish. It's either British or nothing, while Scottish can be used in the lead. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My point is that through collaboration we are getting it right more often than not, without the need for edicts on how to do this. In contentious cases we are achieving a consensus which the majority of editors can put their names to. The compromise of not stating a nationality, just a place of birth, with details in the lede, is a good one. However for compromises to work they have to be agreed upon and accepted by thos in dispute, not imposed on by decree.--KTo288 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is OR. We cannot make up nationalities based on collaboration. Maybe we should change the word, but we should have a way of simply stating the independent state to which a person legally belongs. Looking at the 'Oppose' responses above it seems that many editors are wishing to make some political point through the nationality field in an infobox. This seems to be more and more how WP works. Editors here are to be arbiters of the truth rather than writing facts; we are now to decide the political divisions of the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The state the person belongs to is called "citizenship". The word nationality can mean either citizenship or ethnicity, so to avoid confusion we should report citizenship and/or ethnicity and avoid the confusing term "nationality".“WarKosign” 11:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not so. Citizenship implies right of abode. I agree with using a clear and well defined term but unfortunately 'citizenship' is not it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. Of course (normally) a citizen of a certain state has the right of abode in that state. Other people who are not citizen may have right of abode as well, but it's beside a citizenship which is a specific legal relation between a person and a state that can be described in an infobox.“WarKosign” 07:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Citizens have a right of abode and a right to participate in the political life of the state (e.g., to be elected to Parliament). Nationals may have neither of these rights. Both nationality and citizenship are separate, specific legal relationships between a person and a state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete the field

When in doubt, throw it out. We should delete the Nationality/Citizenship fields entirely, as I rarely see them being used in non-UK bio infoboxes. I see no reason for giving the UK bio infoboxes special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There is no general agreement amongst editors what the field represents so how can we expect our readers to know what we mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone reading a box which says English will understand that the person comes from England. That is not too difficult. FF-UK (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Or that it's an Englishman who lives in China.“WarKosign” 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The birthplaces are already mentioned in the infoboxes, therefore the nationality/citzenship fields are not necessary. The UK doesn't deserve special treatment. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. It is not clear what the 'nationality' field is meant to mean. It seems that FF-UK want to use it to show where a person 'comes from', whatever that means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A term in an info box should always have a readily understandable meaning for the benefit of the readers. It appears that those who have opposed making the definition clear, want to be able to decide nationality based on consensus. That does not make for a reliable encyclopaedia. Either define it or delete it altogether. Defining or deleting it, it doesn't matter which, makes it more difficult for editors to abuse it. Those who want to retain it, and in an undefined state, clearly have an agenda. They see that an undefined nationality field provides them with the opportunity to put distorted information into articles under cover of consensus. 86.129.126.155 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I support deleting the field. Many countries that traditionally used "nationality" are getting away from this practice. The only place "nationality" exists is in a person't passport. It's not clear how this is determined. If a child is born to parents of different nationalities, how is the child's nationality determined, especially if all three are citizens of the same country? This is an arbitrary designation that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. USchick (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have an idea of how many different kinds of infoboxes this might affect? I've seen the problem arise in articles about historic people using infoboxes such as {{Infobox writer}} (which has nationality, citizenship, and ethnicity fields) in cases where the nation in which they born and lived has ceased to exist and become something else or changed names, especially when the change has political or ethnic implications. Also, if there's a serious desire to eliminate those fields, the attempt is going to have to be more formal and better publicized than just this discussion (and I wouldn't give a nickle for its chance of succeeding even with that formality and publicity) as there are too many vested interests in particular infoboxes for a general discussion here to satisfy everyone without that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right about vested interests. It seems that everyone wants to own the good and great. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is against policy. If a Wikipedia tool serves no other purpose, perhaps it's time to get rid of it. I bet someone really smart could get a bot to do this. USchick (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support this proposal, but only if you take the rest of the person-infobox with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin, while I don't disagree with you, that's not quite what I meant: I simply meant that the people who regularly use, for example, {{Infobox writer}} may have a completely different feeling about and put a different strength of importance on the nationality and citizenship fields than those who use, say, {{Infobox scientist}}. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would bet that the field is still used and fought over so that various factions can claim ownership of the good and the great. My original point was simply that this field should be reserved for something well defined, and understood by our readers. As it is now, and looks to remain, the field can indicate an undefined melange of legal nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, workplace, birthplace, self-identity, and stuff that, 'everybody knows', decided on a case-by-case basis by the editors that happen to be involved with the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you delete the field, then how will you handle the thousands of people who are nationals but not citizens? These people are not stateless; they're just not citizens. Since this applies to biographies of long-dead people, please note that this status encompasses a large fraction of articles about people before the 19th century, including nearly all women in history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

National and Nationality are two different things. To complicate things further, different countries have different laws about "nationality" and some countries don't recognize it at all. So how can we expect to resolve these issues in an info box? By deleting this very ambiguous term, it doesn't take anything away from the person at all. It's still the same person, but without an ambiguous label. The only way to verify it is to look at their passport. Can we do that? USchick (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have American nationality, you are an American national. If you are an American national, then you have American nationality. They aren't "two different things". (The word nationality gets used for multiple things, just like the word tissue does, but that doesn't mean that a national does not have nationality.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That may work in America. Not in other countries. USchick (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, I would be very interested in seeing an example of this. Please tell me: For what country is it possible to be a national of that country, but not have that country's nationality? NB that I'm talking about the legal type of nationality, of the sort used in this treaty, which defines the term this way: ""nationality" means the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person's ethnic origin". Please give an example of a person having that particular kind of legal-not-emotional "nationality" for a country without also being that particular kind of legal-not-emotional "national" for said country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have an Italian-American or a Chinese-American person, clearly "American" is the citizenship. How would you name their property of being Italian or Chinese ? Many people call this nationality, while others call the citizenship nationality. There is a lot of confusion over these words, so it is much better to use unambiguous terms such as birthplace, ethnicity and citizenship instead of the vague "nationality". “WarKosign” 11:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You describe such people as being ethnically Italian or Chinese. In other contexts (e.g., the census), you might describe them as being racially white or Asian. They stopped being Italian or Chinese nationals when (if) they formally severed ties with their country of origin. If they never did that, then you can identify the as being Italian and American, or Chinese and American, with the legal connection to the two countries being co-equal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a European Union treaty? There are countries in Europe that are not part of the EU, like Eastern European countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. You were a "national" of the Soviet Union (or any post-soviet country) and had your "nationality" listed in you passport as something different. A politician in Ukraine had this issue come up early in their campaign and it was a very big deal for the rest of their political career. Yulia Tymoshenko her father was a Soviet national and "His Soviet passport gave his nationality as Latvian." Yulia Tymoshenko#Family and personal life. Anyone in the Russian Empire was a Russian national, but their "nationality" was assigned to them and often it wasn't "Russian." A Jewish person in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union had "Jewish" assigned to them as their "nationality" and there was no way of getting out of it. I don't know how many post -Soviet countries still follow this system today. In Eastern Europe this is a very big deal even now. Unless you can look it up in each individual passport, there's no way of knowing. A passport is a primary source, and Wikipedia policy leans toward secondary sources. I hope that helps to explain it some. USchick (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Latvia is (and was nominally, even under the USSR) a sovereign nation, so that's not an example of someone having Latvian nationality without being a Latvian national. (It wasn't technically possible to be "a Soviet national"; you had to be a national of one of the members of the USSR. It also wasn't possible to have "a Soviet passport", because they were issued by each of the member states, not by the USSR itself. He presumably had a Latvian passport that was issued while Latvia was a member of the USSR.)

Your Russian examples are using nationality to mean ethnic origin, not to mean a legal bond between a person and a nation for international/diplomatic purposes. It's true that the "fifth record" of the internal passport was labeled "национальность", which literally translates as "nationality", but it actually meant and was used for "ethnicity", which is why "Jewish" was a possible answer. (I've read that this conversation would be easier in German, because they have completely separate, unrelated words for these concepts, and don't have a bad habit of using the neutral-sounding "nationality" when they mean "ethnicity".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal; I don't see what these fields actually add to the articles, apart from giving insiders something to argue over. If someone's nationality or citizenship is really interesting enough to discuss, it should be done in the article itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

That is absolutely right. The main purpose of the nationality field in bios is for various factions to calim ownership ofthe good and the great.

De jure nationality is well defined but not that important or interesting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Require strict sourcing

If this proposal is defeated, as looks likely, all statements of nationality will be in limbo with no clear meaning for the word 'nationality'. Deleting the field from infoboxes is problematic and unlikely to succeed. I therefore suggest that we revert to the most basic principle of WP and requite strict sourcing for any infobox nationality that is in the least bit contentious. By strict sourcing, I mean a good quality, unbiased, reliable source which actually makes the statement that XXX has YYY nationality. Statements that XXX was a Londoner, New Yorker, Cornishman, or English are not sufficient, we must find a source specifically stating the nationality of the subject. No source; no nationality.

This new proposal is stricly in accordance with the most basic WP policy and is the only way that I can now see of making the 'nationality' field meaningful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a rule to that effect. It's been in existence about as long as Wikipedia has. We don't need new rules. It's always been that every statement of fact should be verifiable. --Jayron32 03:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not proposing a new rule but it has often been assumed that nationality in uncontentious so that many statements of nationality are unsourced. As it is quite clear from this RfC that statements of nationality are highly contentious, we have no option to apply standard WP policy on the subject, which is that without a reliable source we cannot make a statement of nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. So if a source such as this says "All though everyone in the UK has a British citizenship they have different nationalities" this is what we write. And since these sources say James Clerk Maxwell's nationality was Scottish, this is what we write. “WarKosign” 12:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are joking of course. You have cited a junior school web page as a source on nationality. You should read WP:RS before making any further suggestions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you also Google for 'British' nationality? There are quite a few sources giving his nationality as British. AS the sources do not agree we should not give any nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It has probably slipped Martin Hogbin's attention that sources rarely make definitive statements in the form "John Bull has English nationality", the normal form is something like "John Bull was English". This is equally true within WP articles. It is from within the body of the article that the précis that we call the infobox gleans its facts. Is Martin Hogbin really suggesting that only the precise form "John Bull has English nationality" is acceptable as a WP source? If so, then that specific proposal needs to be tested by a separate RfC, and not as yet another twist to this failing proposal that Nationality should have a specific meaning on WP as opposed to its generally understood meaning, which is the one described in dictionaries. FF-UK (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nationality" has two different meanings in dictionaries. Real life is not so simple as those who write encyclopedias would like. The shortest yet completely accurate encyclopedia would be much larger than all the encyclopedias in the world; it would have to be housed on another planet. Richard Gill (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be two fold... 1) There is a lot of (perfectly understandable) POV pushing when it comes to nationality... editors who themselves identify with a particular nationality want to claim notable people as "one of us". It makes them feel proud. However, 2) we have to remember that notable people can have multiple nationalities... for example, someone who was born of Irish Parents, lived in London until age eighteen, but then moved to Edinburgh when he spent the rest of his life... Is that person Irish (based on parental heritage)? English (based on birth place) or Scottish (based on where he spent most of his life)? That is a situation where "British" seems appropriate. But now change that to French parents, born in London, moved to New York... There is no unifying term like "British"... so is the person French, English or American? You can make a good argument for each... and you can also make a good argument for all of the above or for none of the above. I tend to lean towards the later... nationality is not always clear cut. And when it isn't clear cut, often the best (most neutral) answer is to simply omit mentioning the subject's nationality completely. If you don't mention it, there is nothing for the POV pushers to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

But if the "Nationality" field in the infobox is taken to mean here – as it does in most places – the state of which the person in question is a citizen/subject/whatever, the discussion is simple in 99% of cases. There is consistency in meaning and the classification is easily and definitively determined and verified. It's what we have now, where it seems "Nationality" can mean whatever individual editors on individual pages want it to mean, including sometimes the broader concept more often known as "National Identity", that is precisely what leads to arguments: sources will always differ and/or describe the same person in multiple ways, and the individuals in question themselves might assert multiple and/or different identities from day to day. I've seen far too many pages where editors say "here is one source that happens to describe person A as being XX-ish; XX is, according to this other source, a nation in one sense of the term; hence person A is of XX-ish nationality". And then suddenly that trumps and excludes any other description, whether complementary or contradictory, and is what goes in the infobox, simply because it suits the editor to fix on that one option. It renders the information meaningless and WP a playground for utterly trivial nationalism. N-HH talk/edits 22:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if those contributing to this discussion could inform themselves of the differences between nationality and citizenship before commenting. --John (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Reading British nationality law would be a good start. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

As so much of this discussion centres on the situation regarding Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom then I suggest that all of those taking part could usefully familiarize themselves with that. It is a distillation of the outcome of previous discussions which can found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality. FF-UK (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do please read this essay but also look through the associated talk pages, as I have, to see how few of the editors supported what is said. The essay is nothing more than the views of a handful of editors on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Admit that the word has two meanings

Try looking up the word "nationality" in a dictionary, and read the wikipedia article Nationality. The word has two common meanings. (1) a legal meaning, namely that of being "subject" of a "nation state". (2) an affective (emotional) meaning, the "tribe" you associate yourself with (by birth or by adoption). Hence many people have several nationalities. I propose that we admit that the word can have different meanings, and that a person can have two different nationalities at the same time (or more than two): their nationality "de jure" and their nationality in an affective sense need not coincide. Notice that the word "nationality" only exists with these modern meanings (and has always had both these meanings) since about 1830. The nation state was a nineteenth century invention, and according to some, a disastrous invention. Labelling people by nationality is about power, about asserting power or ownership. Richard Gill (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a very good point and it leads to a simple conclusiom. We cannot have a single field in an infobox just labelled 'Nationality' because nobody will be able to tell what kind of nationality it refers to.

Suggestions to improve this would be:

1) Remove, or at least leave blank, the field.

2) Have one field and call it 'Nationality de jure'. A more general discussion of the subject's nationality could be put in the text, if this is considered important.

3) Have two fields: 'Nationality de jure' and 'Nationality something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've previously proposed, go with option #1. The vast majority of bio articles don't use them. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking Policy Purpose and Goals - 3RR and 1RR blocks

I suggest that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals is amended to reflect common practice that blocks are commonly given out for accidental tripping of the 3RR and 1RR bright-line rules by experienced editors. Such blocks can be misconstrued as punitive and not preventative when given to experienced and otherwise good natured editors, so this policy should reflect and explain this actual practice. Please see a draft in two sections below:

1) Explanation of common practice

Blocks may act as bright line rule deterrents In certain cases blocks are given out for violations of WP:3RR or WP:1RR bright-line rules, even to experienced editors where such blocks may not be seen as directly preventative. Such blocks are not intended to be punitive, but rather to act as deterrents in order to underline the importance of these bright-lines.

2) Explanation that such blocks can be given on an ex parte basis:

Such bright-line blocks may be applied on the basis of a summary judgment and there is no requirement for the admin to await an explanation from the offending editor before implementing a block.

Both part (1) and part (2) are intended to reflect common practice, particularly at WP:ANI and WP:AE, and I suspect part (2) requires more discussion than part (1).Oncenawhile (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bright-line rule is "is a clearly defined rule or standard ... which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation". It is not the case with a revert. I tried to have what is and what isn't a revert (re)defined, without success. Currently the same actions of an editor may be considered a violation of 1/3 RR by one admin and not a violation by another. It leaves a lot of room for WP:LAWYERING and WP:GAMING.“WarKosign” 09:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem - In the opening post the problem seems to be that even experienced editors might see 1/3RR blocks as punitive rather than preventative.

In my opinion the proposed addition does not directly address that problem, but does welcome interpretations that go beyond that limited issue. So an alternative (which would be redundant with existing text probably) might be

Sometimes those who are blocked react negatively, but all editors - new and experienced alike - are expected to assume that the admin who imposed the block acted with a good faith belief that the block was needed to prevent further edit warring and to encourage consensus-seeking discussion.

This alternative text directly addresses the statement of the problem by the OP, while striving to avoid unintended consequences. But doesn't the policy already say that?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

AGF is not required when bad faith is evident. Nor should we ignore cases where an admin acts in good faith, but improperly or unjustly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NewsAndEventsGuy, can you clarify which part of the proposed text you would suggest replacing with your draft? Subject to Andy's comments, I am fine with your addition. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, blocks should not be the main way that WP works. Treating people who, in a moment of excitement or by mistake, breach a rule as criminals breeds ill feeling and resentment and may drive away good editors.

If we are to give blocks for 3RR infringements, for moments of over zealousness, then we should automate the process so that it always happens. This is the only way, in my opinion, that the argument that blocks are protective could be sustained. I am not proposing this, just saying it is the only way that I would accept it.

I believe that, except for editors who regularly and conistently edit war, blocks should always be preceeded by a warning, explaining what the problem is and how the dispute might be better resolved by all parties. The real problem is that we have no adequate dispute resolution system. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly 3RR (and even 1RR where applied) is not a bright-line rule; there is no such limit on reverting blatant vandalism, for instance. This would make it hard to detect automatically. Secondly, the problem of blocks being applied punitively, or otherwise excessively, would be best addressed by restraining (or re-training) admins who breach policy, and betray the community, in such a manner. We should also look to a tool for expunging block logs; or at least adding annotation, when bad blocks are made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"a tool for expunging block logs..." Great another thing to litigate! Paraphrasing Capt Picard in "Insurrection", does anyone remember when we were article editors?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you ar quite right. I was not advocating automatic blocks just saying they are the only kind that I would support. The real problemis that ther is no adequate dispute resolution system. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I agree with you also, except where you write "3RR is not a bright-line rule". WP:EW states that "there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)" - i.e. 3RR is by definition a bright-line rule. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it does; it then goes on to list a number of exceptions, which prove that it is not a bright line rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should strongly discourage the robotic application of blocks for things like 3rr and 1rr. Counting reverts is just stupid. What's necessary is to look at which editor (if any) is trying to communicate and explain what they are doing, and trying to seek compromise, and which editor is just revert warring, or stonewalling, or being silly. Policy should say that such blocks are allowed if they serve the goal of helping editors to write articles; but when blocks don't serve that purpose, they aren't done. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the above changes. Ignoring for a moment my long-standing objection to the mere existence of 3RR, the notion that admins should apply blocks automatically and without even minimal investigation merely because of some "rule" should not be put into writing like this. Do any of the hundreds of admins sometimes do this? Sure. Should they? No. Proper application of 3RR should occur when an admin has judged that the block is necessary to stop an edit war. The above statement encourages admins to make improper 3RR blocks: for two examples, to block a new user who is unaware of 3RR and never been warned before, or even worse, to block a stale 3RR violation merely because someone hit 3RR. All blocks, including 3RR, must occur in the context of admins making judgement calls on whether or not the block is prudent and necessary to stop ongoing disruption, and in situations where something less sever than a block could accomplish the same, it should be used. We should never encourage a block-first and ask-questions-later ethos. Ever. --Jayron32 14:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the above proposals; I don't have much to add to what Jayron32 (and Jehochman) said as it encapsulates my thoughts into far less text than I would have used. In terms of what has brought rise to this proposal, it is probably not coincidence that the user making this proposal was blocked for about 10 minutes nearly 1 month ago in relation to 1RR/edit-warring. It was his first block, and the capricious nature of blocks was clearly felt by him (and it is a pity that he had to go through that). However, even after having had the benefit of reading the entirity of the archived request for arbitration enforcement (AE) here, including the exchange he/she had with another AE admin there, I still maintain a view that this proposal is (and some of the comments made at the time were) misguided. The real reason that incident received the attention that it did was due to the occasionally helpful but sometimes harmful arbitration-imposed discretionary sanctions (DS) regime, and the nature of the particular topic area and editors involved. I believe this would have been handled differently - so that no block was imposed immediately - if the complaint was not made at AE, and possibly if other admins handled it (though the admins I have mentioned by name in this comment may be in a better position to opine on the latter part). Not saying it was a bad block; just it could have been handled differently. But in sum, although any block can be given on an ex-parte basis technically, that doesn't mean that is what should necessarily be happening for incidents like this, or encouraged explicitly via policy. I also don't (yet) believe the proposed amendments are an accurate reflection of common practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ncmvocalist, you're absolutely right. I was blocked, so I went to WP:Blocking policy and realised that the "Purpose and Goals" section failed to include anything on 3RR / 1RR, where such a block is often not directly preventative. In fact, the Purpose and Goals section as it currently stands can be seen as contradictory to common practice at ANI and AE. So I came here to try to bring the de jure and de facto one step closer together.

What I see from this conversation so far is a mild consensus that the application of 3RR / 1RR blocks has little basis in actual policy. But I don't see much enthusiasm for actually progressing policy drafting on this. It seems to be a similar dynamic to that shown in User:WarKosign's thread to define what constitutes a revert - consensus that policy is unclear, but an apparent lack of enthusiasm to progress to an improved policy. Do you think that's fair or am I misreading things? I am happy to work to help corral a consensus here if people think it is worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I think you may be misreading/misunderstanding in a lot of respects. I don't understand how you came to a view that blocks are often not directly preventative with respect to 3RR and 1RR or that there is a consensus that such blocks are not based in policy. At most, I'd say users here are questioning the value of 3RR and 1RR, but are suggesting that if we must continue to keep revert revision rules for a set number (be it 3 or 1), it is better to try to attempt to discuss the matter with the user in breach than to block where possible - but it is not a strict requirement as that will not always be appropriate or may likely to be ineffective sometimes too. So they are suggesting it ultimately depends upon the circumstances of each case, but the policy as it stands is good (without the amendments proposed here). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ncmvocalist, I agree with your summary - to answer your first point, I have simply extrapolated one step further. To my mind:

• "it is better to try to attempt to discuss the matter" because "blocks are often not directly preventative" (i.e. since a discussion or warning should produce the same result with experienced editors)
• Since in this situation blocks are "not a strict requirement" they are therefore "not based in policy" (i.e. the relevant policy WP:BP is silent on this type of block)

Either way, I agree with you.

Since as you say it ultimately depends on the circumstances of the case, administrators currently have no guidance at all from WP:BP on the community's views re applying blocks in 3RR/1RR cases. How about the below as a proposed redraft:

Blocks may act as bright line rule deterrents In certain cases blocks are given out for violations of WP:3RR or WP:1RR bright-line rules, even to experienced editors. Such blocks are not intended to be punitive, but rather to act as deterrents in order to underline the importance of these bright-lines. Sometimes those who are blocked react negatively, but all editors - new and experienced alike - are expected to assume that the admin who imposed the block acted with a good faith belief that the block was needed to prevent further edit warring and to encourage consensus-seeking discussion. Blocks for 3RR / 1RR infringements are not a requirement and depend on the administrators' judgement of the facts of a given case. Administrators are encouraged to attempt to discuss the matter with the user in breach where possible before implementing a block, however such bright-line blocks can be applied on the basis of a summary judgment as there is no requirement to await an explanation from the offending editor before implementing a block for a clear breach.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Although our text claims there's a bright line, the fact is that two reasonable admins can view specific nuances differently. So what we have now is really a "sorta-brightline rule". Get over it folks, it's an imperfect world. Now notice sentence 1 in this new proposal, which begs the question "What certain other violations do not merit blocks?" If we were to adopt that without answering the question, the rule then tends towards a "MUDDY LINE RULE IN A DIM ROOM". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose 3RR is one of the few policies that have worked very well for the last 8 years. I don't think it is broken. Chillum 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. NE Ent 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Even if it is disputed that 3RR blocks are preventative in the sense of preventing damage (point 1 in WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE), I think you'll agree that they are preventative in the sense of serving as a deterrent to the continuation of present disruptive behavior (point 2), and most importantly, they encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms (point 3). So this kind of block is well within the confines of the blocking policy. Cenarium (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose 3RR has long been one of the most broken parts of the pedia. It is crazy that we go through four levels of warning before blocking blatant vandals, but for 3RR we block goodfaith editors without warning. There is an easy solution now available to us, use edit filters to warn people who are potentially breaching 3rrr in such a way that to save a potentially breaching revert they have to click a button that they are reverting blatant vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - The idea that we have to go through four levels of warning before blocking blatant vandals is a myth. Going through levels of warnings is optional. Vandals are often blocked after fewer warnings than four. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose . Cenarium spells it out well. Ive never had any problems with the current system, but generally admins don't and they don't often make mistakes with it. It's the users who don't fully understand the policy who want it changed, although it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that edit wars are not the right way to resolve content disputes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Bright-Line

I will restate that User:Pigsonthewing is good-faith mistaken in saying that WP:3RR is not a bright-line rule. It is a bright-line rule, in that any editor violating it is likely to be blocked. The existence of the specific exceptions does not mean that it is not a bright-line rule. The specific exceptions are needed precisely because it is a bright-line rule with exceptions. WP:1RR is a bright-line rule if the ArbCom or the enforcing admin made it a bright-line rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Suppose editor A changed a few words in an article. Then editor B made a change somewhere else in the article, then editor A reverted B's edit. One could argue that since A's first edit removed words that someone else typed, it was a partial revert, followed quickly by a second revert - hence A arguably violated 1RR. The possibility of argument whether A's first edit is or is not a revert makes revert rules non-bright-line. “WarKosign” 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done; now read the whole of what I wrote, and tell me how you would automate the application of such a rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you automate the application of the rule? You don't. Rules that have blocking provisions are enforced by human administrators. Even if it is very clear that an edit violated 3RR, the administrator must decide how long to block. Sometimes it isn't obvious that an edit is a revert. Sometimes it is obvious that an edit is a revert. In the latter case, 3RR really is a bright-line rule, with specified exceptions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's unambiguously a bright-line rule, especially in contrast to the general provisions of WP:EW — whether or not you're edit-warring is subject to interpretation, but deciding whether or not you've violated 3RR only requires the decider to follow a checklist. A bot could block for 3RR violations, but this would be a bad idea because 3RR violations don't mandate a penalty: as humans, we need to decide whether a block (or any other sanction) be warranted. Sometimes people violate 3RR but shouldn't be sanctioned; we might decide that blocking in a specific situation would cause more problems than it would solve, and WP:IAR says that such a block shouldn't be done. It's all a matter of deciding what, if anything, is the appropriate response to someone going past the bright line. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, can you show me the bot that can reliably recognize whether a straight-up reversion was due to BLP rules or not? Because if you can't—and I've not seen one yet that can—then a bot cannot "block for 3RR violations", because the bot cannot figure out whether 3RR was actually violated. "Three edits" is not the same as "three reversions" (something that even some admins have trouble remembering). Even a dozen uses of the WP:UNDO button does not necessarily mean a violation of 3RR. There are seven listed exemptions, and if you happen to be faster than the bots at catching poop vandalism, then you can revert an unlimited number of times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend I have made a bot to detect 3RR, it used checksums of pages to determine if a revert to a prior version was done. It resulted in over 50% false positives. It cannot tell what is vandalism or BLP violation etc, it cannot tell if there was a discussion and consensus on the talk page before the final revert was made. It cannot tell when two users believe they are acting in good faith and discussion is a better option than blocking.

I turned that bot off because the hits it was giving me were just wasting my time. The line may be an unambiguous bright line to a bright a person but not to a computer. Chillum 18:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

About five years ago there was a bot that would generate a list of possible 3RR violations. Generally it wasn't worth it for an admin to look at the results, because there were so many false positives. You would almost never want to block for a 3RR that nobody had reported. Somebody needs to report it, announce it as a violation, and then we need the usual set of warnings. You prefer that the reported person will have a chance to respond, especially if they are new. The need to close reports in a timely fashion doesn't allow for a response from the reported person in every case. Usually a block would be issued only if you see there is a problem that is bound to continue unless an admin does something. Admins like to mediate if they can; a lot of reports at AN3 involve 3RRs that didn't lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't ooppose an other test of a bot reporting 3RR issues, but I definitely wouldn't trust one to block over 3RR until we have a clear test with reporting. I wold also like to point out that I think that bot-blocking should only be done where the need is urgent (such as AntiAbuseBot did for a specific sockpuppeteer, before we had the edit filter); I doubt that edit warring would ever get that bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(RfC): Should WP:BLOCK include any reference to 3RR?

Proposal (WP:BLOCK explanation re 3RR)

Thanks all for the useful inputs above. To try to corral some actionable items, or else to close this discussion down, I propose the following simple question:

• Question: Should WP:BLOCK include any reference to 3RR at all, specifically should it include some explanation of community policy regarding blocks relating to 3RR?

Please note that I have specifically not included any proposal regarding what such drafting might look like, as there appear to be a wide variety of views on this topic, and we can deal with specific drafting afterwards if there is a consensus to add anything. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Support (WP:BLOCK explanation re 3RR)

1. [supporting comments]

Oppose (WP:BLOCK explanation re 3RR)

1. [opposing comments]

Policy question on blocking EDU top level domains

Hi. I hope this is the right place to post this. I also hope this is not an old beaten-up dead horse. :) I was recently having a conversation with my niece and the topic of Wikipedia came up. It seems that her college's IP range has been blocked by WP and nobody on campus can edit WP as an anonymous IP, including the faculty!. Some professors, especially adjunct professors, and even some staff are reluctant to officially be a part of WP in case their contributions might negatively impact their jobs. I realize that the open wifi networks on modern college campuses have a high potential for abuse but do we really want to block skilled academicians from making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How are they blocked? I realize that you're using an IP instead of a real account, but most serious Wikipedia editors don't. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have to ask my niece on "how". She just said she tried to edit WP a few times and always got a "This IP is blocked" type message from WP. She was not that specific. She goes to AVC (avc.edu) so maybe there is just a single IP blocked and she was assuming? :: Perhaps what Xaosflux suggests below is the actual issue (proxy servers)? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is very unusual for us to block an entire university IP range and generally it only happens if there is no other way to stop a large amount of vandalism. The only example I recall is when some idiot professor told his class to vandalise Wikipedia on purpose as an experiment. If you tell us the IP range under consideration, we can investigate the reasons and lift the block if appropriate. On the other hand, you seem to suggest that using an IP is a way to remain anonymous. That is the opposite of the facts. In a university environment any clever student can trace an IP number to the computer using it. On the other hand, if someone logs in properly using a pseudonym (as most people here do) only a few Wikipedians with special powers can see where the login comes from. Zero^talk 20:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on remaining hidden. At my university, there are hundreds of computers accessible by any student or faculty member, and dozens accissible to any person who is in one of the many buildings where they are sitting near the doors. There is no login procedure or any other way of determining who is using a particular computer. It doesn't matter that "any clever [IT-oriented] student" might be able to track the IP. We don't have closed-circuit cameras on the computers, so just getting an IP hardly identtifies the user. Kdammers (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that "some professors, especially adjunct professors, and even some staff are reluctant to officially be a part of WP in case their contributions might negatively impact their jobs"? Is this according to your niece? How does she know? Has she sat down and personally talked to a large number of personnel and asked them directly? It seems like a strange claim to me, one most likely based on personal hunch rather than anything concrete. As for the IP block, everything Zero said is valuable. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was going by her comments and didn't question her statements. I have heard that "tenure politics" can be pretty ugly from friends in the teaching profession but I have nothing I can cite WP style. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A login need not be one's real name. And as the original poster possibly has been told, there are some good reasons why one would not want to use a login that coul be publicly traced or matched to the actual person. In a way, that's even *more* untraceable than editing without logging in, because it prevents revealing even your IP address. DMacks (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Additional notes: our blocks are only ever to ip addresses or wikipedia usernames, we don't have the capability to block by DNS (e.g. *.edu); Some campuses may use proxy services, routing large amounts of outbound traffic through one ip address, if that address is blocked it can impact everyone using that proxy service. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Xaosflux: Question: When a "request" to ban an IP goes to an admin is any effort made to determine if it is an EDU domain before proceeding? Should there be? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's usual to check out the details of who might control the IP, but most requests are for a single IP address, so it will only affect (in theory) one computer. It's actually a bigger problem for Asian and African users, because "one IP address" can be the sole source of internet access for whole towns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see my various replies above. While I think the question is valid, the example (my neice) may have been overblown because I assumed she was accurate in her various comments. Family... they can get you in sooooo much trouble! :) 104.32.193.6 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have no special powers, but can say that IP range blocks are usually handled with the utmost care to prevent as much collateral damage to preventing others from being able to edit. A whois check is run on the IP to see all of the details of the IP, things such as if it is an EDU usually appear in such reports. Here, A bunch of the many possible reports that are used for such things for your IP: 104.32.193.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) Hope this helps! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Before placing a range-block, I would perform a more in-depth review then a single address, even more so if it will be lengthy, additionally I'd be much less likely to also enable autoblocking of logged in users from such a block. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But as far as stopping immediate disruption/vandalism of the project, just because an address is associated with a school doesn't give it any special passes for me--most schools give out free wifi to anyone these days, so the edits could be from anyone. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

dates and places

Is there a policy on which comes first: DATE OF BIRTH or PLACE OF BIRTH?Kdammers (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there is certainly not a policy on that. It's possible that there might be a guideline or suggestion somewhere. However, the ultimate answer is going to be "it depends". If you follow the format of "Old King Cole (1664–1708) was a merry old soul", then you'll be listing the dates first. If you don't (or if you don't list the dates at all), then you'll probably be listing the birth place first. The former is very common for articles about long-dead people; the latter is more common for articles about living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How uninvolved does an editor need to be to collapse talk page threads/thread contents and how much time should be left since last edit before collapse?

I am particularly interested in a case of a type of article that may attract a set or regular editors on a potentially controversial topic. Where is the cut off as far as interest is concerned with regard to the use of templates such as template:collapse top and Template:Archive top. In any case where the validity of a collapse is questioned how possible is it just to remove another editor's collapses? Is this something that can immediately be done or is it necessary to ask the editor that performed a deemed unnecessary collapse to perform a revert. GregKaye 14:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific, codified requirement or restriction with respect to elapsed time or involvement. Editors are expected to use good judgement with respect to other Wikipedia policies and principles. I can't help but wonder if you have a specific instance in mind, but I'm not sufficiently curious enough to try to look for it in your contribution history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The only real rules about any sort of discussion closure are: Is it likely that the user has an interest in closig the discussion in one particular way, to the point that (s)he would be unlikely to close it if the consensus clearly went in the other direction? If the case is borderline, would the user be tempted to judge the dsiscussion fairly, and not be too tempted in one direction? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, עוד מישהו, Thank-you both. I noticed that the archive top template gives the limited advice "It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors", and the collapse top template gives no advice or guideline. I should give some thought on what might be added to this if anything. Any thoughts? In the case of the talk page I am thinking about there is clear good intention and and clearly, good reason for closure in several cases. It's just that thread closure situation generally got me thinking. GregKaye 03:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The archivetop tpl does not collapse a thread. It is generally used only for a specific debate or discussion (e.g. RfC) or as a signal to physically archive cases from noticeboards. It is unusual to use the green collapsetop system on talk pages unless the content to be collapsed is completely off topic or otherwise irrelevant or undesirable, or in the case of relevant additional detail such as a table or a list for example, to reduce clutter. Talk page threads get physically archived as and when necessary; this may be done by a bot or manually at the discretion of the parent project or other users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Banning policy and IAR

This is something I’ve wanted to post for a long time, but have never gotten around to it until now. I guess I was just worried about being seen as a “bleeding heart” towards banned users. In my view, site bans are unevenly enforced. I’ve seen banned editors have their new accounts exposed, only to be allowed back onto the project after a community discussion (with mixed results). Conversely, I’ve also seen editors blocked indefinitely with widespread community support at AN/ANI, despite making nothing but positive contributions, solely because they were banned.

Consider this scenario: an editor first registers an account on Wikipedia at 13 years of age. They make some productive edits, but are ultimately too emotionally driven to be a collaborative presence on the project. It is later discovered that they were operating a massive sock farm to carry out all sorts of nastiness: vandalism, trolling of the most heinous variety (death threats, ethnic slurs, legal threats, fake suicide threats, etc), attempting to “out” a contributor, etc. They were indefinitely banned. After six or so months of continuous activity and trolling, they stop editing altogether. One year later, they register a new account and begin making constructive contributions. This time however, there is no trolling or anything of the sort; they are simply a productive editor. In fact, they have become a very prolific member of the community, racking up thousands upon thousands of edits and making significant contributions in their areas of expertise (be it article writing, RC patrol, volunteering at the help desk, or anything else of that nature). After ten years of uncontroversial editing, their prior identity is revealed.

My questions are as follows:

1. Would the correct course of action be to immediately block them indefinitely (talk page access revoked, email disabled, autoblock enabled) and place a sockpuppet notice on their userpage? Does the block of a long-term, prolific contributor for ban evasion warrant a post to AN or ANI? If so, would you be inclined to support a (renewed) community ban?
2. Should this user be forced to undergo the standard offer, or appeal their ban via the ban appeals subcommittee?
3. Would their age at the time of the original ban be considered a mitigating factor? Does their recent history largely invalidate their troubled past, or does it demonstrate contempt for the community and its rules?
4. Given the nature of their past activities (death threats, outing, massive sockpuppetry, etc), can an unban ever be considered a possibility?
5. Assuming you feel that this sort of editor ought to be blocked, should more efforts be undertaken by the community to identify and expose these sorts of ban evaders wherever possible, as a means of holding them accountable for their past actions?

The overarching question is – where do we draw the line? Can IAR be applied to banned users? Kurtis ^(talk) 13:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well... my first reaction would be to question the likelihood of your scenario... leopards don't change their spots quite so quickly. Someone who was as disruptive as you present is unlikely to completely change their ways after just one year.

But (to play devil's advocate) - let's amend your scenario to a slightly more realistic one... a 13 year old kid is banned for highly disruptive editing... and stays away for 5 years or so. He does a lot of growing up during those years, and now realizes that his prior behavior was wrong. Now, at 18, he is starting college and signs into Wikipedia (under a new identity) and constructively edits from then on.

Chances are, no one is going to notice (or care). It is extremely unlikely that anyone would discover his prior identity ... because he is not giving anyone a reason to even wonder whether the two identities are connected. The issue of his prior identity is simply not going to come up, unless he mentions it himself (again unlikely).

OK... let's say he does mention it... first it would be a very WP:DICKish thing to report him, given the behavior of his new identity. I would say that (in this very unlikely scenario) we should invoke IAR and simply "forgive" the banned editor his youthful transgressions. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree about the "leopards not changing their spots quickly" thing when it comes to adolescents. You'd be surprised - I find that kids mature very fast in a short amount of time. ;)

Otherwise, I agree with the points you've made. I do not think the banning policy should be a suicide pact, and IAR should apply in those sorts of cases. That's just my opinion, though. I'd imagine some people would disagree with me, and their reasons would likely be valid. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that if a user who was site-banned is capable of making thosands of edits with a new account, over several years, without anyon e suspecting them - that probably means that the ban is no longer necessary. Add the age of the user at the time of disruption - and no action could possibly be necessary. Bans, like blocks, are preventitive, not punitive - and I doubt that even Grawp ould be denied an oter chance of the community could be convinced that he will behave. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What if they invented a flying car? Would you still drive it? What if we collected 20 years of checkuser information? What if we could use checkuser information to fuel flying cars? This whole scenario is terribly convoluted. Some of our members hold long grudges, but I don't think that if the last transgression is more than five years ago and there has been a lot of good behaviour since has been shown many would still care so much that they believe the user should remain banned. I do believe we should all move on - but this kind of situation would be so rare that we should probably look at it case by case. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypotheticals, Martijn. Hypotheticals. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Bots filling talk pages

We have some very long user talk pages. It would be good if bots like User:SuggestBot, User:EdwardsBot, User:MiszaBot, User:MediaWiki message delivery, etc, did not deliver to pages, which were over, say 100,000 bytes in length. They could perhaps, leave a one-off short note explaining that they would resume (or could be asked to manually), once the page size was reduced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

SuggestBot (talk · contribs) can be configured to overwrite its previous message, as here. EdwardsBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in six months, and MiszaBot (talk · contribs) has been blocked these three years. As for MediaWiki message delivery (talk · contribs), that's not a bot, but a generic username used by a software feature, see m:MassMessage. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Red, this discussion is a fork of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User talk. It may be best to centralize the discussion there. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a fork to me. It's a related topic, but a separate question: the VPT thread was about where to get a report of long user talk pages from. This one is about preventing bots from posting to long talk pages, which might be the same ones listed in that report, but probably aren't - the report linked above includes several pages that are not in User talk: space, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her, so that's not a given. Also, since a bot cannot be expected to run a report - or even check a pre-prepared report (which may well be out of date by several months), presumably the bot would be coded to read the page size prior to posting to that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I have seen several user talk pages where the user has been inactive for months or years, yet the talk page still accumulates spam from newsletters and what-have-you. I would go further and suggest an API addition so a bot can quickly determine whether a user has been inactive for an extended period; there is no point delivering newsletters to someone who has been inactive for six months. However, something concrete that can be done now (such as a page-size limit) rather than pie-in-the-sky proposals may be better. One issue is that adding a section to a talk page does not involve reading the whole page, and I don't know if there is any other way to get the size of a page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, your suggestion might be going too far. See this discussion for why we don't want to automatically stop sending things to retired users just because they're retired. However, stopping at a particular page size is a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing templates

I raised the following issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music: The two templates IMSLP and IMSLP2 were nominated for merger. Someone put a notice at the top of the template that the templates were up for merger. Now, everywhere the template appears, it includes that notice. Like this:

Free scores by Beethoven at the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP)

I asked that the notice be moved so that it does not appear in article space, and was told that this was policy.

It seems that, if this is policy, it is one of the more idiotic ones I have encountered. I would guess that at least 50,000 people or more read articles with those two templates every day; of those, maybe one or two are interested in a technical discussion about merging templates; the others are simply confused by an irrelevant message.

If this really is the policy, it should be changed forthwith. If it is not the policy, could someone please remove this ridiculous message from article space? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I now see that the same thing happens with {Template:Infobox musical composition}. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)