Wikipedia talk:Minors and persons judged incompetent

Domicile and other points
"A person who is a national (like or more comprehensive than being a citizen)"

Nick, I do not think that makes sense. What does national mean (because in the context of the UK it is to put it mildly confusing (See for example English people, Welsh people, etc). AFAICT what you man is the nation/state under which a person is domiciled which is not the same as the nation to which they belong. Many people are a citizen of more than one country (they can hold dual citizenship and they may consider themselves members of several nations. But under law they can only hold one domicileity.

See "[http:www.offutt.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081001-054.pdf Changing you state of Domicile]" which is a US military document and seems aimed at Americans moving within the US.

A search of the UK government domain name returns lots of stuff on domicile and treaties.

There is a more comprehensive description here: Annex FM 1.5 - Domicile (74KB opens in a new window. It describes were a child is domiciled under UK law.

It states "Generally a person can only have a domicile within a territory subject to a single system of law. This means that normally a person cannot, for example, be domiciled in the United Kingdom, but would be domiciled within England and Wales or in Scotland."

Which is why I used the term federal in the edit I made (because I did not want to go into the details of the odd UK system which in this respect is more like a federal system) and given the above, if the jurisdiction is the same, I do not see how "Within a single nation, similar differences can govern a person who has a permanent residence at one address but is temporarily at another". -- PBS (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of the section is to address conflicts of laws between jurisdictions and the essay should be global insofar as practicable.


 * A national is a person who, in international law, is the responsibility of a nation or is protectable by that nation. Citizen is, I think, more commonly used in intranational law, thus the differences between U.S. and U.K. law. In the U.S., nationals and citizens are almost the same people but, the last time I read up on this, Swains Islanders and people from one other place were nationals but not citizens of the U.S. Since the meaning of national is the more comprehensive one, I preferred it to citizen for the section. I can probably clarify the section by simply referring separately to nationals and to citizens. I can also add about dual citizenship or dual nationality.


 * A person who is domiciled somewhere being (according to Wikipedia) a permanent resident there and given that in the U.S. many immigrants are by law permitted to be permanent residents of the U.S., we should ensure the essay's applicability to, for exasmple, an immigrant who is a permanent resident in the U.S. but who might temporarily go back to their nation of origin. Thus, including both the domiciliary and nationality sentences avoids confusion and helps applicability.


 * Probably, virtually every nation except perhaps the very tiniest has local differences in law. Either virtually all nations are thus federal or federalism is a narrower concept. If virtually all are federal, adding federalism to this essay is useless. If many with local variations are not federal, federalism in this essay is too limiting to the essay's purpose.


 * Historically, there have been two approaches for travelers: the law attaches to the land so anyone on it is subject to it or the law attaches to the person so a person is subject to it wherever they are and is somewhat immune from local law during their travels. The latter still applies to diplomats. In modern times, this generally has gotten more complicated. The U.S. applies both principles, depending on circumstances. In the essay, I want to maintain the point that a person may be sbject to two sets of laws and we should apply the more protective set. But saying only that will be confusing to many readers because the concept of being subject to two sets of laws is unclear. I don't want people to think that, because this is the Internet, laws that apply to print don't apply to Wikipedia, and that's been a common view about websites. I didn't mean to apply that (alleged) conflict of laws to this essay. Thus, the various common ways that dual applicability can occur and that have relevance to this essay should be outlined. If the list of ways gets too long, the paragraph may need reorganizing so the point isn't missed, but we can deal with that when needed.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Below the age of minority?
Isn't the correct phrasing "below the age of majority"?--Khajidha (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Fixed.--Khajidha (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Names in cases of self or adjacent published/authorized sources
Privacy is important, but also we must be realistic. Cases such as celebrities discussing their kids to mainstream outlets are de facto public knowledge, and while some jurisdictions might not consider it as such, most don't have an expectation of privacy on information that has been widely publicized by the subjects themselves. If "John Smith" drops in an interview with E! about how much he loves going to fish with his son "James", not including "James"' name would be silly.

A greyer case would include if "John" consistently mentions James on his currently active, public YouTube vlogs. Granted, ideally this should be backed by secondary sources, but this. If, by contrast, he once mentioned, two years before fame, how his daughter "Sara" was battling cancer on a long neglected Blogspot, that information would likely be haram. 2803:4600:1116:807:218C:946:F00E:5FE3 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Case by case discussion is sometimes needed (see one example here: . The discussed article currently reads "They have three sons together, born in 2012,[35] 2014,[36] and 2016.[37] " which I think is generally good WP-style). In your first example, I could reasonably oppose per WP:BLPNAME policy, arguing that one E! article is not "widely disseminated", and that adding James' name does not add "significant value", noting in the article that John Smith has a son is enough.
 * In your second example, I can argue it fails WP:BLPSELFPUB policy, "Such material may be used as a source only if: ... it does not involve claims about third parties"
 * In short, when writing about living people, exclude when in doubt, and sometimes even when not in doubt. Just because something is public knowledge doesn't necessarily mean it should be in a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)