User talk:SusunW/Women's nationality
If you are here to help with development of this topic, welcome! I envision this as an "anchor article" of a series, which gives an overview of the topic and women's involvement in the issue of women's nationality. To accompany this anchor, I propose a series of other articles based on continent — Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America, and South America — which give more detail about each region's development on the issue. Rather than separate articles by country, I strongly believe that women's nationality constraints should be added to existing articles explaining a country's nationality system. This is paramount to eliminate the current situation where articles on nationality do not even make the reader aware that there are, or ever have been, discrepancies between men's and women's nationality. I also would like to develop a table (no I have no idea how to do that and perhaps we also include same-sex spousal information as well) that lists every country and compares by date: Women's nationality dependent upon spouse; Women's independent nationality; Wife unable to bestow derivative nationality on spouse; Wife able to bestow derivative nationality on spouse; Women unable to bestow derivative nationality on offspring; Women able to bestow derivative nationality on offspring; etc. These may need to be tweaked and added to.
Each country discussion should include whether a woman automatically lost her nationality upon marriage and if she lost it were there procedures for her to get it back (conditions like divorce, widowhood, if her husband's state refused her his nationality). When wives were assigned dependent nationality (family unit); allowed independent nationality (individual nationality); and could/could not bestow their nationality (derivative nationality) upon spouses and offspring, is also necessary.
Perhaps it is easiest to develop sections in individual sandboxes and then add them here so that we do not have multiple people simultaneously editing and tripping over each other. Thanks for your interest and feel free to bring up points to discuss.SusunW (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- One other thing. This is the abstract report that Doris Stevens presented to the Pan American Union. It contains information on the 77 countries she collected data on. How I wish we could find the full report that "indexed all laws impacting women's nationality from each country. On one page, the law was given in the native language and on an accompanying page was translated", but I've been searching a long time (took 6 years to locate the abstract) and have never found it. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- This (Wold, 1928) looks to be an abstract of the full report and gives the status in various countries in 1928. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Basically at this point, I am writing the sections on what the legal status was in each place. These will be summarized in the continent section and the data in each country moved to the article Fooian nationality law once the continent is done, proofed, and the information has been abstracted in a table. Haven't begun the section on women's movements by place and have an outline of the international movement which will need to be supplemented once we are clear on regional efforts internationally. I think the regional activism will point us back to international overlaps, but that remains to be seen. SusunW (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Additional considerations[edit]
This is of course an extremely complex topic but it seems to me several other factors require special attention (in some cases maybe in the form of individual articles). For a start, these include:
- a historical review of the meaning of nationality and citizenship in different regions of the world, with special reference to women;
- an examination (perhaps in the form of country-by-country or continent-by-continent tables) of the date(s) when nationality was legally conferred on women (including any limitations);
- the extent to which the "nationality" of women differed from that of men in regions which moved from belonging to one country to one or more other countries after wars, invasions, occupations, territorial reparations, ethnic considerations, etc.;
- language: in addition to legal citizenship, both men and women consider their true "nationality" to depend on the language they speak (e.g. English- or French-speaking Canadians, especially in Quebec; "Germans" living in Poland and other regions of eastern Europe which were historically parts of German-speaking states; Catalans, Basques, Bretons, Galicians, etc., in Spain and France; Flemings and Walloons in Belgium; "Russians" in Estonia or Moldova.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Extremely complex is an understatement :), but yes Ipigott all of those things need to be addressed. (There is a source in the German section that talks about your last point and one of the French articles talks about how after the war German-speaking people were excluded from nationality regimes). I proposed a table, but I don't know how to create it, mainly because I think it gives a good way of comparing the data. I also recognize that as we are developing it, things may well change dramatically as we learn more on the topic. Thank you so much for your insights and willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- We could always begin with quite primitive tables to cover the most important factors. They could then be sophisticated as more detailed information evolves. Perhaps the most important goal initially is to make people aware of the whole problem of nationality in regard to women, last but not least in connection with Wikipedia categorizations. Then of course there's the whole business of "country of origin". See [1], [2]. But this is perhaps peripheral to the main topic. Nevertheless, I was surprised to see the current Wikipedia article on Country of origin does not address the issue for people, only for goods.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Ipigott I was also thinking the table would probably be first. If someone could work up the information in the Stevens' abstract, that would give us a start on the 77 countries in it and we could expand from there. I think we will also discover lots of gaps in our coverage as we go. As I said earlier, I was totally shocked that the birthright citizenship article for the US mentioned nothing of the issue. It is no wonder I feel as if I am constantly explaining to people that nationality didn't matter for women as much as ethnicity, simply because they weren't considered as citizens, but could be part of various communities of like characteristics. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- We could always begin with quite primitive tables to cover the most important factors. They could then be sophisticated as more detailed information evolves. Perhaps the most important goal initially is to make people aware of the whole problem of nationality in regard to women, last but not least in connection with Wikipedia categorizations. Then of course there's the whole business of "country of origin". See [1], [2]. But this is perhaps peripheral to the main topic. Nevertheless, I was surprised to see the current Wikipedia article on Country of origin does not address the issue for people, only for goods.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Extremely complex is an understatement :), but yes Ipigott all of those things need to be addressed. (There is a source in the German section that talks about your last point and one of the French articles talks about how after the war German-speaking people were excluded from nationality regimes). I proposed a table, but I don't know how to create it, mainly because I think it gives a good way of comparing the data. I also recognize that as we are developing it, things may well change dramatically as we learn more on the topic. Thank you so much for your insights and willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
British overseas territories[edit]
Should all of these be discussed in one group?[3] SusunW (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- If the same rules have typically been applied to these different territories, it makes sense to group them together (at least initially). Also, avoiding unnecessary complexity in an article this large might be a good move. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Alanna the Brave I agree, especially since it seems they all have the same rules and if we discover minor discrepancies, it can just be noted rather than repeating endlessly the same stuff for each nation/country. SusunW (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Indian status/the Indian Act in Canada[edit]
Just pondering this: should I mention the Indian Act and how it affected Indigenous women in Canada? I'm not sure if it's the same thing as "nationality", exactly, but Indigenous women faced similar issues when "marrying out" of their culture in Canada -- up until the 1980s, they were routinely stripped of their Indian status and related rights for marrying non-Indigenous men, and they could no longer pass Indian status on to their children, either. Feels very relevant. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Alanna the Brave I think yes, it's all related to my eyes. See discussion from my talk here, where others have also weighed in. SusunW (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Queries re: Australia section[edit]
Hi SusunW, just looking through the Australian section (finally...). I see the lead will contain the sentence "Nationality establishes one's international identity as a member of a sovereign nation". Now, this is the case in Australia, but I am passingly familiar with the use of the term nationality in the Balkans, and in particular in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, and it has a different and sometimes conflicting meaning there, one that reflects ethnicity, which is often intertwined with religion. This is encapsulated by what was known as the "national question" in Yugoslavia. I can only assume that "nationality" is also used in a similar way in other regions of the world, and you should perhaps look into this and touch upon it in the article? For an explanation of what is meant by the "national question" in Yugoslavia, you cannot go past The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics by Ivo Banac, published by Cornell University Press in 1984. Here is the JSTOR link: [4]. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, "the modern concept of nationality" probably needs to be modified in light of the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi SusunW, all done. A few tags which contain reasons for the tags. Good luck with it, big job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 Thank you so much. Yes, very big and complicated problem with lots of facets to weigh and consider. Appreciate your time to review it and will work through your observations on the Australia bit. Just establishing the legal history in each place is daunting, but I trudge through. I appreciate the Yugoslav piece, have a similar article on Germany so I think the two will help to develop that aspect of nationality more fully. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are very welcome! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I found a copy of the Jstor book on Project Muse, as I couldn't access your link. After reading it for 3 days and this article on Germany, I think the easiest description lies in Boll, pp 67-68. Interestingly, Banac kind of describes it as an east-west divide, but Boll puts it in a historic construct. Based on my reading, the interpretation of belonging is a world-wide phenomenon, and common in every culture. Nationality laws no matter where they were written traditionally tried to include those who were homogeneous and easily absorbed by the mainstream culture and to exclude those who were unassimilable. My thought is that from a legal standpoint, nationality is membership, ethnicity/nationalism is ideological (cultural, linguistic, religious, etc. shared history) and citizenship is socio-economic/political. I swear I must read 10 articles on this topic to write one sentence, but I am certainly learning a lot. Anyway, to address your concern, I thought to add a sentence, "A related concept is nationalism whereby shared history (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious), underpins the ideology of building a nation to exclude those that are unassimilable." cited to (Banac, 1984, pp 406-407), (Boll, 2007, pp=67-68) and (Bös, 2000, p 4). Would that sufficiently address your concern? SusunW (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would say it doesn’t fully address it, as the two are intertwined in a Balkan (and perhaps other) context, and the term “nationality” is used to refer to membership of a “national” group, which is closely related to the country that group is aligned with. Many Serbs in Croatia, for example, refer to their “nationality” as Serb, rather than Croatian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 I'm still confused, sorry. The proposed draft is to be added to the history section of Australian nationality law is not a general article about nationality. I'm not sure that it isn't shifting the focus of the article away from Australian law, as the situation in the Balkans still seems like ethnicity and ideology/belief to me, not law and I am having difficulty understanding its applicability in Australia. Maybe I'll have a better handle on it once I have done the countries in the Balkans. So for now, I'll leave the Australian nationality law draft here and will revisit it. Once I've reviewed the law in the Balkans, it may well be that there are described legal entities within the Balkans that have dual memberships, and it will be clearer how the law there affects Australia. I did look for information on aboriginal nationality with regard to Australia, but it does not appear that aboriginal Australians have a tribal nation status as their laws are unrecognized, except in very limited applications.[5] That legal situation is unlike Native Americans, who are legally tribal nation members as well as US nationals, have their own rules for enrollment, their own legal systems, and their own governance, separate from either state or national law/governance. I thought the statement on nationalism, was applicable to aboriginal peoples, as they perceive that they are members of a community, even if they do not have a legal designation as such. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I've finished the rest of Oceania. I've thought about this a lot. Since the topic is law, it occurs to me that possibly simply inserting "legal" may fix the problem.
Nationality establishes one's legal international identity as a member of a sovereign nation
. I do understand your point, Ian made a similar one above, but the reality of the situation is legally governments didn't care what one identified as, they simply bestowed or removed nationality as they saw fit and wrote laws to accommodate their social norms. I am 100% sure from reading women's testimonies that they felt they were Australian, Mexican, or South African regardless of whether their legal status made them Danish. But if they needed legal assistance, it had to be through Denmark, as they were no longer anything else. Does the change help? SusunW (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I've finished the rest of Oceania. I've thought about this a lot. Since the topic is law, it occurs to me that possibly simply inserting "legal" may fix the problem.
- Peacemaker67 I'm still confused, sorry. The proposed draft is to be added to the history section of Australian nationality law is not a general article about nationality. I'm not sure that it isn't shifting the focus of the article away from Australian law, as the situation in the Balkans still seems like ethnicity and ideology/belief to me, not law and I am having difficulty understanding its applicability in Australia. Maybe I'll have a better handle on it once I have done the countries in the Balkans. So for now, I'll leave the Australian nationality law draft here and will revisit it. Once I've reviewed the law in the Balkans, it may well be that there are described legal entities within the Balkans that have dual memberships, and it will be clearer how the law there affects Australia. I did look for information on aboriginal nationality with regard to Australia, but it does not appear that aboriginal Australians have a tribal nation status as their laws are unrecognized, except in very limited applications.[5] That legal situation is unlike Native Americans, who are legally tribal nation members as well as US nationals, have their own rules for enrollment, their own legal systems, and their own governance, separate from either state or national law/governance. I thought the statement on nationalism, was applicable to aboriginal peoples, as they perceive that they are members of a community, even if they do not have a legal designation as such. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would say it doesn’t fully address it, as the two are intertwined in a Balkan (and perhaps other) context, and the term “nationality” is used to refer to membership of a “national” group, which is closely related to the country that group is aligned with. Many Serbs in Croatia, for example, refer to their “nationality” as Serb, rather than Croatian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I found a copy of the Jstor book on Project Muse, as I couldn't access your link. After reading it for 3 days and this article on Germany, I think the easiest description lies in Boll, pp 67-68. Interestingly, Banac kind of describes it as an east-west divide, but Boll puts it in a historic construct. Based on my reading, the interpretation of belonging is a world-wide phenomenon, and common in every culture. Nationality laws no matter where they were written traditionally tried to include those who were homogeneous and easily absorbed by the mainstream culture and to exclude those who were unassimilable. My thought is that from a legal standpoint, nationality is membership, ethnicity/nationalism is ideological (cultural, linguistic, religious, etc. shared history) and citizenship is socio-economic/political. I swear I must read 10 articles on this topic to write one sentence, but I am certainly learning a lot. Anyway, to address your concern, I thought to add a sentence, "A related concept is nationalism whereby shared history (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious), underpins the ideology of building a nation to exclude those that are unassimilable." cited to (Banac, 1984, pp 406-407), (Boll, 2007, pp=67-68) and (Bös, 2000, p 4). Would that sufficiently address your concern? SusunW (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are very welcome! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 Thank you so much. Yes, very big and complicated problem with lots of facets to weigh and consider. Appreciate your time to review it and will work through your observations on the Australia bit. Just establishing the legal history in each place is daunting, but I trudge through. I appreciate the Yugoslav piece, have a similar article on Germany so I think the two will help to develop that aspect of nationality more fully. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi SusunW, all done. A few tags which contain reasons for the tags. Good luck with it, big job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)