Talk:Statelessness

Untitled
This page has the exact same text and pics as 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I suggest that one be merged into the other. (Ghostexorcist 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

No to merge proposal
This page and the other pages about the 'status' and 'reduction' conventions of '54 and '61 have now been differentiated. There is some common content. Thank you for tagging for cleanup, etc.DavidYork71 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Though some articles have similar material, all of your pages use the same uncited info over and over again. If you look at the page from this edit, you will see that the '61 page was identical, same sub-headings and everything. And now, even after your multiple edits, these pages still share 60% (and I'm being kind here) of the material. There has not been enough differentiation to merit taking down the merge tag. Either expand this page with new info or merge the two.(Ghostexorcist 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Well done to ghostexorcist who placed these pictures much better than I did and filled in text
Re merge proposal with the page on the Statelessness Reduction Convention I still resist this because: 1. the 1961 Convention deserves a page of its own setting out greater detail eg. fuller explanation of the Convention content, the full list of States acceding. '1961 Convention' is now only a small part of this article. 2. the realising of the Convention is a seminal achievement in international humanitarian law. Let's have a Wiki page all of its own to remember the moment when the nations of the world did and said something solemn and uplifting for all the people of the world who didn't have a nation! DavidYork71 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Unreferenced Tags removed
this article now has four references, plus external links. Content is differentiated from '61 Convention page by treaty text summary appearing there while history of UN action and regional initiatives is mentioned here. Does anyone have infomation about the (proposed?) UN Special Rapporteur on statelessness. DavidYork71 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

GA NOM
I'm not going to be reviewing this for GA status since I've done some very minor work on the page. But, like I said for the '61 page, this article is going to quickly fail the nomination. It is still more of a list than an article, the sections are too small, and there are only four citations. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm being realistic. There is no set limit for citations, but since this article features a very broad topic, more than four are needed. You also seem to favor statelessness in the 20th century more than that which happened in the past. The article would be better balanced if you offered just as much info on events of statelessness in ancient times as you do the 20th century. Also, try to focus more on countries outside of Europe and Asia Minor. You only briefly touch on Asia Major.

I know for instance, during the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution of Tang Dynasty China, which was apart of the Four Buddhist Persecutions in China, masses of Non-Chinese people, who had lived there for centuries, were driven out of the country because their religious beliefs were considered heretical forms of Buddhism. These people where forced to the outlying regions of China that were not under the direct control of the Chinese empire.

I think you are really getting a head of yourself when you try to nominate these fledgling articles. You should take the time and build up material before doing so. I see that you have requested a Peer Review. You should have several peer reviews and make requested changes where needed before nominating anything. (Ghostexorcist 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Good suggestions. Peer review will attract examination, interest, contributions and ideas.

GA failure
I've failed this for assesment as a GA for a number of reasons that look too large to resolve in a few days Really needs an extensive rewrite and a lot of work, followed by the peer review I can see the link for above - Peripitus (Talk) 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead does not summarise the article per WP:LEAD but is just a series of definitions of the subject
 * Much of the article is written in list or dot-point form intermingled with short, single-sentence paragraphs. The text needs to be rewritten as prose.
 * Most of the article is unreferenced and the existing references are not well formatted (see WP:CITE)
 * boldfacing statelessness everywhere in the article seems a trifle excessive

Merging "Stateless person" and "Statelessness"
Stateless person and Statelessness basically talk about the same topic: statelessness of a person. I am aware that the articles are large already. I suggest to merge them and then to see how they may be reasonably split into subtopics. For example UN on statelessness is a well-separable topic. `'Miikka 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to merge them the other direction? I think the current version of statelessness is seriously flawed by a basic assumption that owing allegiance to a state is a good thing, a necessary thing for an individual. While from a practical point of view that may be true, I think that's a flaw in the way the world currently works. I like the current version of stateless person better from that standpoint, although I admit it's a less detailed article.
 * On the other hand, if the POV problem were addressed, I wouldn't really care which title the merged article ended up at. --Trovatore 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both articles have their own, as well as common, problems. I don't even want to list them now. Before tackling them, IMO the texts must be merged, under whatever title. `'Miikka 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that statelessness may be a little biased, these two articles contain a vast amount of the same information --
 * This is a needed merge a long time coming. bd2412  T 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I object unless the word "person" is stricken since it is often used as "coded" reference to effeminate or homosexual "persons" whereas anyone can find themselves "stateless" not just members of a group of "persons" classified as stateless. No one needs to become a member of a group either before or after the fact to become stateless. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

albert einstein
removed the whole passage about einstein: einstein was stateless only between 1896, when he renounced his würtemberg-citizenship, and 1901, when he received his swiss citizenship, which he kept until his death, and therefore not becoming stateless in 1933, after he had renounced his german citizenship, and it would not belong under the titel "after world war II" anyway. the rest about the albanian king is undetected IP-vadalism going all the way back to Revision as of 08:49, 19 January 2009 !!! --Ajnem (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is however a bit weird that the situation of Jews in Europe prior to WWII is not mentioned here. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist Statelessness
As an anarchist, I reject any claim of citizenship made upon myself by the country or group that may surround me, based upon the simple and self evident fact that a binding contract can not be made with an infant such as myself at birth, who was unable to speak or communicate to understand such a contract, that no such contract or terms of contract were even presented to me, and that such a contract does not provide any assent or signature to indicate that I agreed to be bound or tied into such an obligation or contract, irregardless of what some third party (my parents) may have tacitly assented to. Lysander Spooner argued it best: a contract without a signature made without the assent of the party to be bound by such a contract, is a non-binding contract. Doubly so, when as an adult I further adamently can reject such a one sided bargain. A state can not assign citizenship to me and pawn it off as some kind of privilege or gift when I myself see no upside to such a devil's deal. This article seems to be written from a biased point of view that statelessness is some kind of undesirable pox to be rid of and should not be wished upon anybody, when many anarchists might argue quite the contrary.

I do not see such a thing as citizenship particularly beneficial, as such states fail to protect their members from harm, and place a seemingly limitless number of rules, regulations, and onerous taxations and obligations upon them. This article seems skewed to presenting statelessness in a pejorative context. I think some section of an Anarchist viewpoint in favor of statelessness being the first, original, and natural state of a human being should be included in this article, considering divestiture from any binding or association with anything state is core to the anarchist political philosophy. I'm rather new to Wiki editing myself, so am hesitant to make these changes myself, feeling somewhat more free to participate in the discussion back page. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Stateless Territories
At the risk of seeming frivolous, I think some reference should be made to stateless territories which are stateless such the Moon, Planets, expanses of outer space in general, unexplored heavenly bodies, on the high seas in international waters, and the dubious validity of any claims made upon them by states, perhaps in a stub or linked article. Also territories that should have remained stateless by choice (or international agreement?) such as the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle, and that those born within these regions would be stateless by default. At first glance this may seem frivolous to reference, but I think including them, particularly outer space, would show that indeed, the vast bulk of the universe (over 99.9999999999% of it), is indeed, stateless.

Also some reference should be made to those people who in whole groups, reasserted their statelessness by choice and aggressive military resistance, such as the Free_Territory_(Ukraine) and those villages and peoples liberated by the Nestor_Mahkno anarchist Black Army, and the general statelessness of all of Russia and the people living in such territory after the tsarist regime collapse. Or for that matter, the people of any state which has collapsed, for example, Germany, Italy, and Japan at its collapse at the cessation of hostilities after World War 2, or The Confederacy after the American Civil War, or in more modern times, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia after the collapse of the states and governments within them. They ceased to exist as a country or state, and at that point only existed as a geographic region named and marked on a map. Indeed, such lines are nothing more but invisible lines in the dirt, and if someone can actually put their finger upon a state, I should argue the idea of a state is nothing more than that... an idea with no real physical existence at all. Once this group and its associated governing bodies is shattered and it ceases to be a functional nation due to outside hostile destruction, the members of the group revert to being... stateless individuals.

Some cultures, such as aboriginal cultures, Native Americans, or maternal centered tribal societies, do not practice any form of statehood at all, as it is not an idea or concept in their culture or even something which is desired. These territories were illegally and unjustly considered stateless and open for annexation and overrun by paternally driven aggressive societies, when they were not (for a biting and humorous description of this, see: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Geocaching). The aboriginal cultures view of the Earth was that it belonged to all of humanity as a whole. Indeed, many Native American tribes argued that many treaties that supposedly sold off large tracts of land for trinkets of beads by some ad hoc representative of one tribe, were invalid, because all of the continent belonged to them as a whole aggregate in the same tradition of the commons. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Largest?
Larges stateless people according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation Please note, Kurds are listed as number 4. However in the modern era, Kurds are facing systematic mass executions, imprisonment and pushed out of their land. Please see links below for some of such examples. Unfortunately, such treatments of Kurds has caused many arms conflicts for Kurdish population to resolve or demand fair treatment, however results have in most cases been answered with massacre of Kurdish people.

ISIL massacre of Kurds (Iraq and Syria) http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/friend-flees-horror-isis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL

Al-Anfal Campaign, Iraq massacre of Kurds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued fatwa to massacre and repress Kurds http://www.academia.edu/4817650/THE_RISE_OF_THE_ISLAMIC_REPUBLIC_OF_IRAN

Turkey's massacre of Kurds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_massacre


 * (For more examples you may search the web as there are endless such examples.)

It is unfortunate that there are untold numbers of such genocides in the history against the Kurdish populations, predating Nazi WWII genocides.

There are many museums and memorials dedicated to much deserving innocent Jewish people that were executed by Nazi Germany, so public would never forget such events and would not allow such events according ever again. However, it did many times more. The Holocaust Museum in the Washington, DC houses large number of displays of WWII era and many collections relating to other nations, however, there is not even one line in the Holocaust Museum regarding to genocides of Kurdish populations. Kurds in the history have been called many things, such as "Mountain Turks", "People of Iranian origin", "Nomadic people", "Fighters", and many other incorrect identifiers and some derogatory terms, but the better terms for Kurdish population are, "stateless" and "forgotten" people.

It is unfortunate that stories of Kurdish genocides have been hidden from the international view and not much talked about in order to keep the international relations status quo. However, with development of technology and mass communications such genocides regardless of dates, no longer can be hidden from nations.

False claim
This article says that Palestinians are the largest stateless nation in the world, but there are about three times as many Kurds in the world as Palestinians. Gtbob12 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed this claim, as it's been almost a year, and no source has been provided. If someone has a verifiable source, feel free to put it back with the citation. .אבי נ (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Superman
Would Superman have been a stateless person? In the DC comics canon, he was born on Krypton (an extraterrestrial body, and thus presumably either terra incognita or international territory by Earth law) and was adopted by Americans. He would presumably have been raised as an American. But would he have needed to be naturalized? 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this is interesting, in light of the above question 198.151.130.69 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statelessness not problem
Actual problem is way countries treat people they don't accept, people they not accept as citizen. If countries treat all people in borders equally then statelessness not problem. Citizenship system is actual problem, hard for people to change and get citizenships. Article automatically assume stateless is negative, but a global system with no citizenship, all countries treat all people in border equally, all people pay tax for income sources in countries would have much more freedom and much more economic flexibility than current system. Trinhhoa (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SOAP and WP:TPG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ROC
Removed ROC as an example of a non-state whose citizens are effectively stateless. Most residents of Taiwan are considered PRC citizens by the PRC. So even if you consider the ROC not to exist, they aren't stateless.

Roadrunner (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not effectively stateless, the RoC functions as an effective state. Officially residents might be stateless given most nations recognise the PRC rather than the RoC as the Chinese government but I understand that with the exception of the PRC all governments recognise RoC passports and hence give de facto recognition of RoC statehood. Could be included as an example of official but not practical statelessness. Should I add that to suggest RoC citizens are PRC citizens would be considered highly offensive to some? The closest parallel would be calling Canadians, US citizens, except without the humour of that suggestion. 118.208.147.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Canadian cases
I'm a bit confused by the two Canadian cases here. While this article cites proper sources, it also links to two wikipedia articles which contradict the information here. As Rachel Chandler's mother was a Chinese citizen at the time of her birth, Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China says that "Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality." She was probably not stateless, but just denied a passport by China. In Chloe Goldring's case, the article at Belgian nationality law says that "A person born in Belgium (to non-Belgian parents) is a Belgian citizen if that person: holds no other nationality at the time of birth (i.e., is stateless)" and further down also says "A person may be naturalised as a Belgian citizen after three years residence in Belgium. This period is reduced to two years for political refugees and stateless persons." This contradicts this article, which says "Due to the nationality laws of Belgium, Canada and Algeria, she was not eligible for citizenship of any of those countries and was born stateless." Perhaps she was born stateless, but because of that she would have been eligible for Belgian citizenship. If this is incorrect, then the article Belgian nationality law is incorrect and needs to be fixed. 78.148.151.203 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that the word parent in Chinese nationality law might exclude unmarried parents. An unfortunate but but uncommon feature of nationality law. Although it's surprising that there's no ability to "legitimate" a child born outside marriage upon marriage of her parents.


 * The Belgian article is wrong. Belgian nationality law actually says that:
 * "Any child born in Belgium who, at any time before reaching the age of 18 or being declared of full age, would be stateless if he or she did not have Belgian nationality, shall be Belgian."
 * So Chloe Goldring while born stateless, would have become a Belgian citizen were she still stateless on her 18th birthday. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

UK case
I am posting the background to an ongoing UK case, a man who was declared stateless by the UK government in 1980. In the first instance the identity of the individual is concealed as the case is still actively working. It is potentially a solvable problem and it is likely that matters will come to a head in the next few months and I will add the name and references as soon as possible. For the moment I will just say that I have seen the documentation first hand. IainWallace (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this doesn't pass muster. Wikipedia doesn't permit editors to conduct their own research or publish information which does not have citable sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, O.K. The problem is the word "citable". Its not my research, although I am now involved in further research to solve the problem. I have official documents to hand, including Home Office statements of statelessness and copies of the UN stateless persons documents. A handful of background documents are available online (some behind paywalls) but nothing dealing with the story of the statelessness problem. I hope the problem will be settled within a few months, if the Home Office dig their heels in it may well go through a phase when there will be plenty of sources to cite, otherwise I'll come back to it when it is just a historical curiousity (with sources!) IainWallace (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read Wikipedia's policy on original research you'll get what I meant when I said research. A press release would probably result in some newspaper articles that we could cite. I'm curious however: how could someone whose father was British (by birth?) and who was born in "her Majesty's dominions" not be a British citizen? And even if he was a British subject without citizenship why doesn't he apply under section 4B of the 1981 Act? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany
The section on Germany assumes that an individual loses his or her citizenship immediately upon denouncing it. I reasonably sure this is wrong for most countries, for which denunciation is only effective upon successful acquisition of another nationality. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Stateless in Sabah
The article doesn't cover the Stateless in Sabah. While it is hard to get accurate figures on how many stateless people there are in Sabah, estimate are around the 100K mark. These people (like my partner) where born in Malaysia (with/without authentic Malaysian birth cerificates), but as their parents (or in some cases grandparents) came to Malaysia illegally - they aren't considered Malaysian citizens. The Phillipines Governments also make in neigh impossible for them to get citizenship by descentSepilok2007 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dominican Republic case
The haitians born in the Dominican territory should not be considered stateless. An individual born anywhere from haitian parents is still haitian according to the haitian constitution.

Standing descent: A person born in Haiti does not automatically receive citizenship. A child, regardless of where they are born, is considered Haitian if either their mother or father is a native-born citizen of Haiti. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Haitian_nationality_and_citizenship

Article 11: Any person born of a Haitian father or a Haitian mother who are themselves native-born Haitians and have never renounced their nationality possesses Haitian nationality at the time of birth. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Haïti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrocha (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kuwait - Neutral Point of View
You are the ones breaching "neutral point of view policy" by repeating the lies of the Kuwaiti Government. If you would like to be neutral you should at least include some of the injustice and suffering Stateless people in Kuwait are being put through and clearly state that the below are only claims and not necessarily true practices of the Kuwaiti Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.231.206.144 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2014

Surrogacy
a section of surrogate pregancy should likely be included, as its a emerging area, that potential creates stateless people. for example A child born to an indian surrogate mother for intended British parents would be stateless, as indian law says the child has the nationality of the intended parents and UK law says the child has the nationality of the mother. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-28679020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Statelessness
Cyberbot II has detected links on Statelessness which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://ispo.bravesites.com/about
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Statelessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050228062055/http://www.unhcr.org.uk:80/press/press_releases2005/pr25Jan05.htm to http://www.unhcr.org.uk/press/press_releases2005/pr25Jan05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

List numbers by country
We read Total population 3.687 million Regions with significant populations Asia and the Pacific 	1.563 million Africa 	1.021 million Europe 	592,151 Middle East and North Africa 	374,237 Americas 	136,585 but then there is no breakdown by country. Jidanni (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Statelessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611182141/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325153730/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002053218/http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2009/2009-04-15/html/sor-dors108-eng.html to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2009/2009-04-15/html/sor-dors108-eng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604120258/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=c3a5560d-5170-4d4a-a318-a8675e759171 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=c3a5560d-5170-4d4a-a318-a8675e759171
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324084319/http://www.lostcanadians.org/forum/topics/ireland-saves-canadians to http://www.lostcanadians.org/forum/topics/ireland-saves-canadians
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312093852/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37018 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37018
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ibelong.unhcr.org/en/home.do
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://refugeesinternational.org/who-we-are/our-issues/statelessness

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are Syrian Kurds not mentioned? Most notable case in recent times!
Some people confuse this Wikipedia article with nations without a state of their own. This article isn't about that; it's about citizens of an existing state that are not recognised as legitimate citizens by that state. While Kurds are the world's largest nation without a country of their own, there are (or were) also Kurds who weren't recognised as legitimate citizens of the country of their birth; a totally different case.

I am talking about how Syria made over 300,000 Syrian Kurds stateless. These Kurds were born and lived in Syria, but they did not have the Syrian nationality. They were not registered as citizens of that country and their posessions were taken away from them.

This wikipedia entry lists the current number of "stateless citizens" in the Middle-East at +/- 300,000. The stateless Syrian Kurds alone account for that number.

Why is the most notable case of modern statelessness not discussed on this page? Is this on purpose?

Here's some reading material:

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/docserver/journals/22112596/19/1-2/22112596_019_01-02_S019_text.pdf?expires=1496423338&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A1038ED6457659CBCC43D6CAE5526F77 83.82.163.173 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The case you are talking about is mentioned in the article. Statelessness among Kurds likely deserves its own Wikipedia article since the condition affects so many people. ImTheIP (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in the lead section
The statement "statelessness is the lack of citizenship" is not correct. For example, UK nationals who are not citizens of the UK or any other country are not considered to be stateless. They may have UK passports, vote in UK elections, have unquestioned right to live and work in the UK, have generations of ancestors who had the right to live and work in the UK, etc. The second statement "A stateless person is someone who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law." is valid and the first incorrect statement should be removed or qualified. Apuldram (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? You may be right, but I have personally never heard of UK nationals that are not also citizens of the UK. ImTheIP (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Under international law "A stateless person is someone who is not considered a national by any state under the operation of its law." (Nationality and Statelessness - International Law). Anyone accepted as a national by at least one state cannot be described as stateless.  The Wikipedia article British nationality law shows six different types of British nationality, only one of which is citizenship. The article is supported by the British Government website Types of British Natioality. Thus a person can have UK nationality, and so cannot be stateless, without being a citizen of any country. The opening statement of the article: "statelessness is the lack of citizenship" is not correct and I will remove it. Apuldram (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. You are correct. In the footnote in the UNHCR report referenced in the lead it is stated: 'The word “nationality” is used throughout this paper as a synonym to the term “citizenship”. Nationality refers to a legal bond between a person and a State.' But "nationality" isn't an exact synonym to "citizenship." ImTheIP (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Stateless nation
This is the sentence in the lead I have been removing and an anon has been reinserting: "Most people belonging to a stateless nation (including most indigenous peoples around the world), despite lacking their own nation state, nonetheless hold citizenship in one or more countries, in some cases effectively as second-class citizens." This is likely true (even though it is unsourced!), but is not relevant. Membership in a stateless nation and statelessness are two orthogonal concepts. For example, a Kurdish refugee can have American citizenship but still be a member of a stateless nation. Statelessness is a well-defined concept in international law while a "stateless nation" doesn't exist in it. It serves the article no good to conflate these two subjects. I think many of our Wikipedia articles on international law aren't as good as they can be, because all even tangentially related points are "crammed" into them. I think being succinct is much better for the reader. ImTheIP (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have given a new section to this paragraph, as it deals with a different point. Apuldram (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Indonesia
Indonesian law on citizenship of 2006 confers Indonesian citizenship at birth in various categories. However children born out of wedlock to foreign parents is not one of those categories. If the parents' nationality is not conferred automatically by birth, then the child will be stateless.Suastiastu (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Roman Example problematic
In "Before World War II", the existing text draws analogies to the Roman empire that present problems.

In the Roman empire before 212, it is quite true that only some people enjoyed Roman citizenship. Others could be better characterized, again using modern terms, as Roman subjects or as citizens of polities subject to Rome and organized under the authority of Roman provincial governors. Or protectorates. There were Roman citizens, living in Rome, Italy, or in colonia enjoying Roman status, or as individuals living in communities with other status. There were individuals who lived in communities with Latin Rights, so they had the citizenship of their own city/town and specified superior-to-average rights in Roman law. There were those who had the citizenship of their existing community and no additional status under Rome, other than that their community was part of a province under a Roman governor and that conferred status, or that they were subjects of a federate king or polity in relations with Rome. Anything from a Greek city to a Gaulish tribe could qualify as the basis of citizenship.

All of those people enjoyed some sort of status under Roman authority- one could variously characterize it in modern terms as multi-class citizenship, as the distinction between citizenship and subjecthood, as distinction between citizen and resident alien, or as the distinction between citizenship of an imperial power and of a subject territory. It's plausible to describe the Roman Empire before 212 as all of these, given that most of its provinces contained self governing elites ruling cities and tribes of all kinds under the governor's supervision.

Few of these people would be considered 'stateless' in modern terms.

Slaves are a troublesome analogy for different reasons- they did lack all of the above statuses, having never held or been deprived of their status. But they were also public or private property, which goes well beyond mere statelessness.

Probably the most likely candidate for statelessness would be anyone who just wandered into the empire from any of the peoples around it who did not enjoy federate status and were considered mere barbarians. In theory, they might struggle if they had to establish status before a Roman authority. Random noter (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideological renunciation of citizenship, but not official renunciation for practical reasons
Some ideologically stateless people, renounce only in philosophical texts their citizenship, but not legally. Some of their enemies claim they should be without papers and proove to their enemies via their suffering that they mean what they say; but only low IQ people suffer to entertain their enemies. Their friends usually accept practicality.
 * I guess it's when some State officials claim "someone is officially stateless but not legally". And I also guess it's gender-based as the whole UN. 82.132.184.13 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

make page: Antistateness = antistatehood = anti-stateness

 * antistatehood: to consciously fight against the notion of state
 * anti means that you fight against it
 * non-something could have been a mild denial without the term defining if the individual actively fights against the idea he/she/it denied

Antistatehood may be a ramification of anarchy, but it also may not be!!! Not all antistatehoodeers are necessarily anarchists (the fact that something sounds silly to you doesn't mean it's not one's opinion). Thus it doesn't belong to anarchy as a term, instead only a part of its interpretations.

http://web.archive.org/web/20190409085610/https://el.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/αντιπάτριος

Turkish passport
Hi. In the Turkey section, it says that this guys passport was cancelled. But, cancelling a pssport does not make you stateless. You need to clarify.101.178.163.215 (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Contents
Why is india bold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmtunes (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Brazil law
What about...

Brazil
Brazil is among the few countries in the world to have in its Law the recognition of a Stateless person in order to provide documents to this person as an official citizen of the country. Maha and Souad Mamo, who have lived in Brazil for four years as refugees, were the first stateless persons recognized by the Brazilian State after the creation of the new Migration Law (Law No. 13,445), which came into force in 2017. The Migration Law provides protective measures for stateless persons, facilitating the guarantees of social inclusion and simplified naturalization for citizens without a homeland. The legislation follows international conventions of respect for stateless persons and seeks to reduce the number of people in this situation, giving the right to request nationality. While usually in countries having similar laws is offered to the stateless person the access to basic rights such as education and health, in their documents they are still recognized as stateless with a residence permit, Brazil with its law, offers the naturalization, which means that these persons can be, by all effects, Brazilians. If the stateless persons do not want to apply for immediate naturalization, they will have granted at least definitive residency in the country.

The User:Ya_hemos_pasao on 17 July, deleted the whole section without considering any improvement. The action of deleting content should always be the last resource. The user disagrees with the inclusion of "Brazil" law section saying that is "incoherent, written in poor English and dubious POV. If this content is included at all it should be under the 'notable cases' section and should be written in a neutral (not laudatory) tone." However, the section was already on the "Notable cases" section, with more sources than other parts of the article and with neutral and informative tone, as it is possible to see above. On 24 July, the user again deleted the content under the same allegations. The user is showing constantly not having a constructive behavior, once was already warned on other occasions about it User_talk:Ya_hemos_pasao.


 * Well, this IP has apparently decided to start a fight over what is transparently a non-issue, since the content they have tried to include is clearly not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia and, contrary to their bizarre claim that "deleting content is a last resource" (I think he means 'resort'), reverting edits/deleting content happens all the time. To whichever "third party" appears: The claim that Brazil was in the notable cases section is an outright lie, as the page history shows. 'Brazil' was made a top-level heading all by itself by this IP. I was initially going to move it to the 'Notable cases' section, but when I saw what a mess the whole thing is, I had neither the time nor the inclination to try to salvage something usable ( which was nothing, since none of their sources were reliable). Contrary to what the IP claims to think, it is not the job of other editors to improve their non-constructive, semi-literate additions to the encyclopedia.
 * The idea that a section that begins "Brazil is one of the few countries" and continues in the same vein is "neutral and informative" is ludicrous, as anyone who reads it can see. It's as if it were writen by an employee of Brazil's Tourism or Foreign Ministry (which may indeed be the case). Propoganda/self-advertising are definitely not encyclopedic. The quality of the sources similarly speaks for itself (as does the IP's grasp of English), though I will note they include both a LinkedIn and Tumblr post, which is a new one for me.


 * As for "showing constantly not having a constructive behavior, once was already warned on other occasions about it"-- again, just another bullying editor attempting to use boilerplate warnings to attempt to intimidate others, which as my page will show, another experienced editor pointed out was inappropriate, and I would have sought disciplinary action for, again, if I'd had the time and had been more familiar with Wiki protocol. There are far too many rogue editors on this site who, without having administrative authority or anything like it, try to frighten new editors who happen to cross them with such vigilante 'warnings'. I really don't have the time or energy to deal with drama initiated by IPs over trivia, but in this case I request that this one be blocked as he is clearly WP:NOTHERE. You cannot accuse other editors of vandalism with for reverting your non-constructive edits. I hope this can be resolved quickly. (and, for the record, I have no objection to content on Brazil's statelessness policy being included in this article--why on earth would I? But naturally it must meet all the usual criteria.) Ya hemos pasao (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ya hemos pasao This is not a fight, only a logic statement. First as editor you should read the whole article, there are many other parts using frases as "one of the few", "among the first" etc. this doesn't make a frase or paragraph have a laudatory tone. Before making any conjectures about sources, even that I don't need to justify myself, I am an user from Netherlands in which already provide voluntary work involving help for Stateless persons. Therefore I would like to ask what Brazilian Tourism Ministry has to do with Stateless situation? What is very important to show with the paragraph is that people without a State can have information from Wikipedia to get the knowledge of countries that offer help in this situation. I recommend the reading of the sources mentioned on the paragraph, specially the United Nations article on the UNHCR department. Besides that I don't have anything against you, on the contrary, thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia, but I believe that the inclusion of Brazilian paragraph can help many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.135.167 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this ~ AND please use proper indentation using one or more colons to indent each following editor's addition (see what I've done, above). IP editor: Please consider signing up for an account. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

== Wikipedia accepts that nonracialism is permissible as a self-definition even though humans have genetical characteristics; but doesn't accept that philosophical statelessness exists even though many thinkers expressed that notion (usually but not necessarily anarchists) ==

The fact that you don't like something which is well attested in books, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:6EA6:A116:3A12:1DA:1E94 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Palestinians
Are the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stateless, at least in the view of the US, UK and other countries that don't recognize Palestine as a state?

If so they should be listed in the infobox along with the note or a bracket (partially unrecognized). VR talk 20:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire and Thailand
How odd that this article lists Côte d'Ivoire and Thailand as having two of the largest stateless populations, but then doesn't go on to say anything more about them. I'd be interested, if anyone knows more. 2A00:23C5:D537:AA01:1C2D:ECF9:B667:882D (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)