Archives
Archive

 

I hope I can approach this topic without opening a Pandora's box (Q937164) (oder auf Deutsch: ohne ein Fass aufzumachen), but I keep thinking about the use of this property in the scope of history. I'm sure that many Wikidatans are aware of the problems connected with the use of this property for historic persons. In short, many persons are said to have been citizens of states that didn't exist at the time. Example: Giovanni Boccaccio (Q1402) lived in the 14th century, five centuries before the state of Italy (Q38) existed. I'm no expert on Italian history, so I don't know how to fix this. all I know is that citizenship is a different thing than ethnicity (for that, we have ethnic group (P172)).

One complicated example I do know a bit about is Germany. In the 19th century, people living in the German Reich were citizens of their respective territories, e.g. the Kingdoms of Saxony, Bavarias, Württemberg, Prussia, Hannover, not to speak of all the small duchies. When we go back further, it gets more particular and way more complicated. For simplicity's sake, let's look forward. On July 22, 1913, citizens of states within the German Reich were additionally declared citizens of the Reich itself. This meant that if you were a citizen of Prussia at the time, you automatically became 'Reichsangehöriger'. This 'double citizenship' (though a legal scholar might disagree with the term) remained until Februar 5, 1934, when Nazi legislation dissolved former citizenships of particular states. Also, after the annexation of Austria in 1938, on Juli 3 all Austrian citizens were declared German citizens (deutsche Staatsbürger).

After World War II, it gets more complicated. After the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, the former saw all citizens living in the GDR as German citizens, while on February 20, 1967 the GDR declared all of its citizens 'citizens of the GDR'. So when I was born, I was considered a citizen of the GDR by the GDR and a German citizen by the FRG. The confusion ended on October 3, 1990, when the FRG incorporated the GDR into itself.

Other legal concerns aside, the citizenship of persons on Wikidata should be reviewed according to the time they lived. When can, I think, argue, that every person considered a 'Reichsangehöriger' since 1913 can be called a "German citizen" and rendered as such. For people living in the GDR, we could try looking for the places they lived (or died) in the time between 1967 and 1990 to determine if they were likely to have been GDR citizens.

What we should do with the citizens of particular German states before 1934 (especially before 1913), is another matter.

And then there are innumerable other cases in other parts of the world, but I'll leave that to people who are familiar with them. Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added an illustration to your post ;)

I had been wondering if we should try to develop constraints that check dates of birth/death/floruit against values used in P27. --- Jura 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• There already is one at wrong_nationality.--- Jura 12:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another point is that some of labels in use for some of the former countries might not be suitable in conjunction with this property. "citizen of Weimar Republic" sounds like a city-state. Maybe it would need a dedicated item with a label different from the one for the period in history. --- Jura 12:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jura1, you made me smile with your "Weimar republic nationality" words, those who know a little history know it's about Germany before the Nazis. Its reminds me from the discussion I'm having about Estonia (Q191) established 1991 (vs Interwar Estonia (Q2174038) established 1918)... Baltic countries generally consider being in a continuity row the same as they were in 1918... It still startles me as there has been a physical disappearance of them in 1940... More generally speaking, has anyone proposed to make a new nationality property alike P27 but only with items such as Estonians (Q1147273) // French (Q121842), not the country in themselves ? So that it would be for instance more easier to tell that Karl Marx (Q9061) was "actually" Germans (Q42884) instead of searching P27 the good then existing country (which can lead to absurdities such as Q16403221#P27 born and deceased whils Estonia did not exist at all and in pratice). Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 19:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Even this is odd (currently 100 people born before 653). --- Jura 23:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ouh là là, j'ai ouvert deux fiches au hasard et il y a eu du vandalisme... (suppression des deux derniers caractères d'années....) Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 12:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonathan Groß, Jura1: : good points ; somebody raise a similar question today on the french chat (Wikidata:Bistro) about a painter from Netherlands and who got naturalised in France in 1547 (Corneille de Lyon (Q720941)). I suggested to put the claim like this :

⟨ Corneille de Lyon (Q720941)      ⟩ country of citizenship (P27)   ⟨ Kingdom of France (Q70972)      ⟩
statement is subject of (P805)   ⟨ Letters patent of naturalisation (Q3236974)      ⟩
start time (P580)   ⟨ "1547" ⟩

Does it seem good to you? How can it be improved? (maybe with more precise or other qualifiers).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

"start time" seems fine. "Subject of" would generally lead to an item about the nationality of this person. Maybe there is a better one than "Determination method"? --- Jura 15:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The country (P17) property means "located in country", not "is from country". In fact country (P17) is a subproperty of location (P276). Therefore, this property should not be a subproperty of country. (If someone is a citizen of a country, it doesn't mean he/she is located in that country.) I propose to remove subproperty of country (or change to another). Jefft0 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jefft0: this property was add by Filceolaire (Special:Diff/223221491). I don't think that country (P17) really means « located in country ». The english description of P17 is « sovereign state of this item » wich seems rather consistent with description of P27 : « the object is a country that recognizes the subject as its citizen ». I think we should keep it. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems we have around 1000 items with a country of citizenship (P27) statelessness (Q223050) (query). That's not a valid country and the intended meaning seems to be the same as country of citizenship (P27) novalue. Is there any reason why they shouldn't be changed to country of citizenship (P27) novalue? - Nikki (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• You can't add statements and sitelinks on "novalue". Are there cases where the current solution is problematic?
  --- Jura 15:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  I'm not asking whether Q233050 is correct, because it isn't (nobody is a citizen of "statelessness", even if humans can figure out the intended meaning). It is not the "current solution" either, there are plenty of items correctly using novalue. I only wanted to know whether novalue could mean anything other than statelessness.

  Q233050 will continue to exist either way, so you can continue to add statements and sitelinks to it either way. If the link between novalue and Q233050 is so important, that does not mean we should abuse the data model and use Q233050 instead of novalue, it means we should find a proper generic way to express what novalue means which can be used for any property. For example, a new property "novalue defined as" to be used on properties would allow us to create a statement like P27 "novalue defined as" Q233050.

  - Nikki (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the label of this property was originally 'nationality', of 'citizenship'. In that way, statelessness is much more meaningful than 'no value', since the situation of being stateless often produces many problems in real life. There are even treaties about that problem. The solution which Nikki suggests (making a connection between novalue and Q233050 with a property-property for P27) is interesting though, I hope that works out. In that case, infoboxes etc. could still whow 'stateless' (or the same term in another language) based on 'novalue' here. Bever (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I found that Joseph Brodsky has now both kinds of values "novalue" as well as statelessness. The problem with "novalue" is invisiblity in standard SPARQL query:

• Items used: Joseph Brodsky (Q862)     

• Properties used: country of citizenship (P27)     

SELECT ?citizenship ?citizenshipLabel  WHERE {
  wd:Q862 wdt:P27 ?citizenship.  
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}

Try it!>

Result is :

[

{

"citizenship": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q30",

"citizenshipLabel": "United States of America"

},

{

"citizenship": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q15180",

"citizenshipLabel": "Soviet Union"

},

{

"citizenship": "http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q223050",

"citizenshipLabel": "statelessness"

}

] SergeiRevkov (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are people who have no citizenship in legal way. And if this statement is about citizenship then stateless is valid value. Taz (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just saw Albert Einstein statelessness example. Theoretically, I would have put no value but I understand the meaning of apatride value. Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 05:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

When a person was a citizen of a former country, it is still valid.. only current countries are an invalid restriction. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agree - this doesn't seem to be a very helpful restriction at all. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Support Jefferson Davis (Q162269) certainly had country of citizenship (P27) Confederate States of America (Q81931). Let's get rid of the one-of constraint. Runner1928 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

currently the one-off constraint seems to need to explicitly enumerate every country or former country. Is there a way we can adjust the constraint to be an instance of any subclass of country (Q6256) (which would then also include historical country (Q3024240)) --Oravrattas (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

In our language (hungarian) this statement refer to citizenship, not meaning to which country the person "belong" or where he was born. But this is nonsense in cases of historical figures who lived before forming of this legal status in country which they lived. Taz (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is the ongoing Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality perhaps tackling some of the problems above. --Marsupium (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The constraint with this property currently does not permit instances of proposed country (Q28864179). It should because individuals should be able to identify with the citizenship of their choice even in the absence of external recognition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've done an exercise to amend P27 values for people from the UK, along the lines of ensuring that all of the flavours of UK the person was a citizen of, are represented in their record. Some of those flavours are:

• Q145 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 12 April 1927 -
• Q174193 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1 January 1801 - 12 April 1927
• Q161885 Kingdom of Great Britain 1 May 1707 –1801
• Q179876 Kingdom of England

Thus for a person born in 1900 and expiring in 1950, I'm giving them two values: Q145 and Q174193 ... and I'm working on adding PQs such as end date and end cause - e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12285904&type=revision&diff=712129483&oldid=712088876

User:Pierrette13 has announced that they do not see the sense in this, and has reverted a couple of my edits. See talk. As far as I understand, Pierrette13 objects that the 1927 change from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a matter of legal form only (Gtranslate: "In my opinion, it can not be said for the same person that she comes from the United Kingdom and that she comes from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, that makes no sense, especially since the question nationality, and not the legal form of the country.")

My view is that our 1900-1950 person was a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, when a state of that name existed. They were also a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when a state of that name existed. My use case is a wish to query wikidata for people who were a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and find our person; and to query wikidata for people who were a citizen of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and find our person. If the person's record does not contain both values, then that query can only be done inferentially by looking at date of birth.

Is there / what is the consensus on P27 carrying multiple UK values? @Pierrette13: --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article en:United Kingdom is sitelinked to United Kingdom (Q145), but as far as I can see the history of the article doesn't start at 1927, and the article doesn't even mention any change in 1927. I suggest changing the inception on United Kingdom (Q145) to recognize the longer period of the state's existence, even if it has changed over time. Then no multiple citizenships are necessary just because the form of the state changed a bit. Ghouston (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's probably worth saying that wikidata items are defined by their properties, not their sitelinks. And you're placing quite a lot of dependence on an article that seems to know nothing of the w:en:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which established the naming of the state described by Q145. I'm kinda understanding your response to say "even though a succession of states and their start and end dates can be defined - e.g. in Q145, Q174193, Q161885, Q179876 - we should instead have an overarching Generic UK item. And instead of making people citizens of the state they were a citizen of, we make them a citizen of the (made up) Generic UK? Is that really what you mean? And if so, does that hold for only the first two states - United Kingdom (Q145) & United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) or, as the en.wiki article goes further back, are you suggesting wrapping Kingdom of GB, and Kingdom of England citizenships into the generic UK? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd say there needs to be a generic UK item to link with the Wikipedia articles, and since they are already linked with United Kingdom (Q145), that's probably the right item. How far back to go, I don't know. In most cases I'd expect there's enough continuity at each change that a citizen (subject) retains their status, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about a new citizenship. Ghouston (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

country of citizenship (P27) has been kicked backwards and forwards a lot, as to whether it should be read narrowly as connecting somebody to a particular state that existed in their lifetime, or should be read more widely to allow a painter to be designated eg French or Italian or Flemish at a time when those states may not have existed in their current form, or even (Flemish) not necessarily existed as independent states granting 'citizenship' at all. I have always found the whole area a minefield, that I wish somebody would definitively clean up, and have never known what value to give a P27 statement for somebody born before 1900, so confess that as a result I have left it blank for somebody else to add, leaving the decision to them. Pinging @Multichill, Andrew Gray: who have both at times had thoughts or suggestions in this area. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also stopped adding country of citizenship (P27). We currently don't have a proper way to model the connection of a historical person with a contemporary country. Probably easiest to show with examples:

• Rembrandt (Q5598) should have some sort of link with Netherlands (Q55)
• Peter Paul Rubens (Q5599) should have some sort of link with Belgium (Q31)

Of course you run into the same problem for England and the UK. This problem needs to be solved before doing any large scale editing. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not easy. Australian citizenship didn't exist before 1949, yet Australia as a federation has existed since 1901 and the term "Australian" was in use in the 19th century. To say that the United Kingdom was created in 1927 or the Netherlands perhaps in 1815 or 1945 or China in 1949 is to ignore much of the history of these countries as states. Ghouston (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A German state has existed for quite a while. It's boundaries, name and form of government have changed over time, but does it make sense to speak of separate citizenships for Weimar Republic (Q41304), Nazi Germany (Q7318), West Germany (Q713750) and Germany (Q183)? Ghouston (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

jurisdiction (Q471855) marks a boundary. --Succu (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we only have one item United States of America (Q30), not one for each time its boundaries changed. Even though the state today is far larger than the one founded in 1776, the continuity is favoured over the discontinuity. Ghouston (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

As Jheald says, I made some notes on it earlier in the year (building on the Wales/Australia discussions), with the hope that we could have a broad discussion about the best way forward - but it's a really complex issue and it's been really hard to pull it all together clearly. I'll try and find some more time to work on it since the problem certainly won't go away... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• See also Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/02#UK_1922_or_1927?. Ghouston (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
• What I got from that discussion was that a) Wikipedia typically has a separate article for a country whenever it changes name, but usually not in other cases like change in territory or constitution, and these separate items then get inherited by Wikidata b) in international law/diplomacy, it's generally understood when a country is considered a "continuing state" c) the UK was considered a "continuing state" in the 1920s when the Irish Free State obtained independence, but Wikipedia still has a separate article for the UK under its old name. But that doesn't mean we have to consider the corresponding Wikidata item to be a separate country; it can be an historical period of the main item instead. Ghouston (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I have read all you were saying, I'm coming here since I've had a debate on something that was before obvious for me about Estonia here. My two cents :

• I am starting to think there should no longer countries in themselves into the country of citizenship (P27). But more items like Estonians (Q1147273) rather than the country/regime/constitution that have/had specific start and end time. Then, if someone would like to query French, he would not look into France (Q142), French Third Republic (Q70802) etc but more with French (Q121842), and would cope more easily with their dates (consistency dates checks).
• Ghouston (talk • contribs • logs), you said something interesting about Australia before 1947. The then australian on their passports, which country was labelled on it? Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 20:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Separate items for citizenships and nationalities have been proposed previously. Perhaps it would help. The term "Australian" for people living in Australia was already used in the 19th century, before Australia had even been federated as a state, e.g., [1]. According to [2], Australia started issuing passports after federation, and didn't even restrict it to British subjects until 1938, but it seems that passports were not used much prior to WW1, and there was a more flexible attitude to nationality. Ghouston (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think no value Help is the appropriate value for this. Do anyone concurs ? There is currently about 100 results with statelessness (Q223050)      per this query which causes constraint violations. I added to them the value no value Help which makes this useless with quickstatement (see this lot). Shall we delete the statement with « apatrids » for items with poor reference ? How de we add an example with « no value » for stateless people ? author  TomT0m / talk page 21:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe actually use P27 instead of P17? ;) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

/o\   Done author  TomT0m / talk page 07:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sort-of related: There are 224 items that have member of political party (P102) independent politician (Q327591). --Yair rand (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• It might be easier to fix the constraint to accept the item. novalue is pretty meaningless. --- Jura 09:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Jura1: It’s the opposite of meaningless, it has a meaning defined in the Wikibase data model. It’s exactly the right meaning here : see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel#PropertyNoValueSnak and it’s consistent in all of Wikidata : we want to emphasize that the person has no country of citizenship at that period. This would be a shame to make an exception (a lot of exception actually, see the example of the political party non-membership) in our data model when it’s handled by design in the underlying data model. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The problem is that stateless people are actually a group with the same citizenship, travel documents .. --- Jura 03:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Representing them may be a problem, but the value of country of citizenship (P27) as currently formulated is supposed to be a country. <no value> is OK. Ghouston (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It can easily be adjusted to include it, besides, it's currently a non-mandatory constraint. --- Jura 08:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The problem is that stateless people are actually a group with the same citizenship, travel documents reference for this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 09:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see in Alexander Grothendieck (Q77141)      that atm there is a statement

⟨ subject ⟩ country of citizenship (P27)   ⟨ no value Help ⟩
instance of (P31)   ⟨ statelessness (Q223050)      ⟩
end time (P582)   ⟨ 1971 ⟩

. The « instance of » qualifier seems useless, does anyone know why someone would want it ? (also ping @Ayack:) as I found the issue thaks to him) author  TomT0m / talk page 09:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Replacing with has cause (P828) sounds more logical. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sjoerddebruin: It’s no more logical, it’s not a « cause ». It’s a logical tautology : by definition, a countryless person is a person which has no country of citizenship, and conversely. For « cause » see Help:Modeling causes, it’s intended to reflect the sequence of events that lead to a state of the world : einstein became countryless for some reason, probably because he was excluded from the citizenship by the authorities of Germany, or because he willingly rejected his citizenship. There is no causal relationship between « having no country of citizenship » and « beeing countryless », it’s just exactly the same thing said in two different manner, a redundancy. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Just move the qualifier value to P27 and it's fine. --- Jura 03:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

For instance US air bases in Germany or Japan should be given country of citizenship (P27)=USA and country (P17)=Japan, don't you think? I don't understand why this P27 should apply only to persons. Bouzinac (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bouzinac: An airbase doesn't have "citizenship". Jheald (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

:Hello, I think that this point should be discussed on Property talk:P27, because, as far as I know, what happened in Italy in 1946 also happened many times in many other countries. In France, we changed from Kingdom to Republic to Empire to Kingdom to another Kingdom to Republic to Empire to Republic in less than a century between 1789 and 1876, but Victor Hugo only had one country of citizenship, France. The country does not change when the political Constitution changes. (Of course that was different before 1860, when Italy was not a unified political entity yet.) Seudo (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I think I oversimplified the situation taking in consideration only the political history of Italy, properties should have consistency wherever they are applied. Just a recap... And I have questions : ) Essentially from the moment unity in a political entity is achieved P27 should be uniformed. It's ok the distinction before/after 1860 (in Italy, obvs) but the transition from kingodm to republic should be simplified. Is it for the sake of efficient querying? What if I need to query, for ex., all the people for specific profession during the kingdom. (I answer myself, I should get better at sparql-ing)... --Divudi85 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm copying here the start of a discussion about multiple P27 statements and I ping the people with whom I talked @Alexmar983, Epìdosis, Seudo: and I link here one of the items with multiple P27 [3] --Divudi85 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

From the discussion above: I also stopped adding country of citizenship (P27). We currently don't have a proper way to model the connection of a historical person with a contemporary country. From Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/05#Country of citizenship: The cititzenship property is quite useless, it could be removed. I tend to agree with these opinions. So, when in doubt, just delete the P27 statement. --colt_browning (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article 2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (The Irish Constitution) states the following: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage." REF:“Airteagal 2. Tá gach duine a shaolaítear in oileán na hÉireann, ar a n-áirítear a oileáin agus a fharraigí, i dteideal, agus tá de cheart oidhreachta aige nó aici, a bheith páirteach i náisiún na hÉireann. Tá an teideal sin freisin ag na daoine go léir atá cáilithe ar shlí eile de réir dlí chun bheith ina saoránaigh d'Éirinn. Ina theannta sin, is mór ag náisiún na hÉireann a choibhneas speisialta le daoine de bhunadh na hÉireann atá ina gcónaí ar an gcoigríoch agus arb ionann féiniúlacht agus oidhreacht chultúir dóibh agus do náisiún na hÉireann. ) Article 4 states the following "[the] name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" (REF:"Éire is ainm don Stát nó, sa Sacs-Bhéarla", Ireland. , and is recognized as such by many if not all international institutions, why is Wikidata content to use this term? Number 22 of 1948 The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 repealed the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, to declare that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. This Act did not change the official name of the State which remains Éire or Ireland, for instance the State was no longer subservient to the British Monarchy but instead a Republic! For example, I was born in Londonderry (or Doire in our native tongue), and like others have the right to claim Irish and or British citizenship. "The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term "the people of Northern Ireland" in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence." (Ref:https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf ) Ériugena (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

# Number of US Americans by century 
# by Jura1, 2020-12-07
# 
# 2020 => 21st century
# 1990,2000 => 20th century
# 1801,1899,1900 => 19th century
# etc.
# millennium precision dates can be in any century

SELECT 
  ?century
  (COUNT(?item) as ?count)
  (SAMPLE(?d) as ?sample_date)
  (SAMPLE(?item) as ?sample_person)
WHERE
{
    ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q30 ; wdt:P569 ?d ; wdt:P31 wd:Q5 . 
    FILTER(!ISBLANK(?d)) 
    BIND(FLOOR((YEAR(?d)-1)/100)+1 as ?century)
}
GROUP BY ?century
ORDER BY DESC(?century)

Try it!

For historical persons, when birth year has value of century as unknown, e.g. Li Bing (Q4308625), the constraint for country of citizenship (P27) for this item is a bit problematic , isn't it? The year 535 when the dynasty dissolved is part of 6th century. Is there a recommendation of how shall this be applied? Thank you for your help. Thank you.

 

jshieh (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ShiehJ: The constraints are OK, Wikidata should not warn about this, see attached Phabricator bug report. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please advise how the entity, Ladislas D'Orcy (Q104813263), born of a part of the Austro-Hungarian aristocratic families, should have citizenship statement created? At the writing, there is a constraint issue. Thank you for your help. jshieh (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

 

@ShiehJ: it's actually explained in property constraint (P2302)none-of constraint (Q52558054) statement : this state had separate citizenships for Cisleithania (Q533534) and Kingdom of Hungary (Q25395037). I can't say anything about the validity of this statement, as it is unsourced, nor what do we do in case we don't know what citizenship is the good one. It's currently affecting a lot of Qid. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jahl de Vautban: Thanks so much for pointing out the two entities: Cisleithania (Q533534) and Kingdom of Hungary (Q25395037) for the name entities that could be decidedly determined. I suppose since his birth place was in Austria, then Cisleithania (Q533534) could be used as the country of his citizenship. Worse case scenario, no citizenship for entities that cannot be determined. Much appreciated your time. jshieh (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest specifying Denmark (Q35) as an invalid value for country of citizenship (P27) using a none-of constraint (Q52558054).

Citizenship is issued by the Kingdom, not by “mainland Denmark”, Farao Islands or Greenland respectively (see e.g. [4]). People are Danish citizens with equal status no matter which of the three parts of the kingdom they come from.

You can request a Greenlandic passport, but this only affects the language used in the physical passport (see [5]). It does not affect the citizenship, and generally it is not public information which variant a person has requested (or whether they even own a physical passport at all).

Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617) is currently only used with country of citizenship (P27) on 75 items, while Denmark (Q35) is used on thousands of items. All those should be migrated to use Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617) instead. --C960657 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Faeroese and Greenlandic people do not have European Union civil rights^[1]. Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 22:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

True. But I don't think you can deduce whether a person has full EU citizen rights based on P27 alone (you need to consider at least P551 also). If a Danish citizen living in Copenhagen moves to Thorshavn, she will loose her EU citizen rights (if I understand the rules correctly), but her citizenship is unchanged. I don't think updating P27 in this event would be appropriate. Similarly, if a Danish citizen moves to Australia, she will loose some EU citizen rights, e.g. the right to vote in elections to the Danish and the European Parliament (with some exceptions), but her citizenship is unchanged. So I don't think the issue about EU citizenship is relevant for my proposal. --C960657 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, it did not come to my mind that a simple move could made you become full Danish or full Faroese. Reading that page ,en:Danish passport, it is all the more confusing as it would seem to be possible to choose between a Danish +EU passport or a Faroe without EU passport, don't know if there is specific conditions to obtaining one or the other. Nevertheless, there clearly exist a 'nationality' without eu rights . What about Aruba and Curaçao? There are other specific territory such as Hong Kong passport that are British (but you cannot move to Britain) so nationality and citizenship may not be the same.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bouzinac (talk • contribs) at 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

According to en:Right_of_abode_in_Hong_Kong, “Hong Kong does not have its own nationality law and natural-born residents are generally Chinese citizens”. There are probably other countries, e.g. some disputed territories, where the situation is less clear. We will have to deal with those on a case-by-case basis. This proposal is about Denmark specifically. --C960657 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have added the proposed suggestion constraint (Q62026391) in this edit. --19:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC) C960657 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi C960657. I just added {{Autofix}} templates for replacing Denmark (Q35), Greenland (Q223) and Faroe Islands (Q4628) with Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617). They instruct a bot to do the replacement automatically. Samoasambia ✎ 20:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland! For instance, in the case of 'Citizenship through birth';" Everyone born on the island of Ireland before 1st January 2005 is automatically entitled to citizenship." (Reference:Immigrant Council of Ireland) (Reference:[6]) Ériugena (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ériugena: Do I understand you correctly that you don’t like the English label of Ireland (Q27)? --Emu (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no citizenship through birth but nationality through birth. Frenchl (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the modern Irish context, there is little distinction between the two terms [citizenship and nationality] and they are used interchangeably. (w:en:Irish nationality law#Terminology--Emu (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are on a global website. In international law the distinction is very clear. On their glossary, the United Nations only use the term 'nationality'. They define nationality as the legal bond between an individual and a State, and “citizenship” as the set of rights and duties that individuals have by virtue of their full membership within a State. In international law, 'nationality' is never used to define ethnicity. Frenchl (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please read the document you linked yourself:

• Your definition is indeed mentioned but not as a universally accepted definition but rather an opinion: (Some authors argue …)
• Nationality is used “more often” not “always” in international law – and the distinction is even muddier in national law: Although nationality is the term more often used in international law, at the national level, both the terms nationality and citizenship are used, sometimes with different meanings.
• Nationality can mean ethnicity: Nationality is also one of the grounds for persecution in the definition of a refugee. In this respect, it should be broadly interpreted to not only cover citizenship but also “membership of an ethnic or linguistic group”

I still don’t understand what seems to be the problem in the case of Ireland. --Emu (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again, these considerations are only true at national level, and only for certain countries. The exclusive use of the term 'citizenship' on wikidata is not acceptable. The United Nations define jus soli, jus sanguinis, and naturalization, as ways to define or acquire nationality, not citizenship. (p. 120 & 145) Frenchl (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think that your reading of some United Nations document (that doesn’t even seem to say what you want it to say) should be the reason to change the labels or the modeling of Wikidata properties? --Emu (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are on a global encyclopedia and an international glossary of the United Nations is a more neutral source of information than American or German laws. Frenchl (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. I don’t think that this is how Wikidata works though. --Emu (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well no, wikidata reflects the vision of moderately educated Americans, just because they are the most numerous here. Frenchl (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

They don't even understand the difference between nationality and citizenship, even though they have two separate pages for "United States nationality law" and "Citizenship of the United States". Frenchl (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. --Emu (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I looked at two previous attempts to create a nationality property, and both times it's failed partly because not enough people commenting saw a difference between what the proposed property would do and what country of citizenship (P27) and ethnic group (P172) do. I still feel uncomfortable with either country of citizenship (P27) and ethnic group (P172) in many circumstances because of the notion of legality for this property (country of citizenship (P27)) and conflation of a national demonym and ethnicity in the other (ethnic group (P172)).
I would use country of citizenship (P27) more often if we could remove the implication that this should be tied to a legal status. The alternate label of "(legal) nationality" and this property's description that says "country that recognizes the subject as its citizen" imply that this is a legal status, even though no constraints exist on the property to enforce this. Could we could remove the "(legal)" from the alt label "(legal) nationality" and change the description to something like "country that has the subject as its citizen regardless of legal status" to encourage more people to use it?
This would encourage more use of country of citizenship (P27) when someone is known as an American or British or South African, for example, but their legal status irrelevant to or challenges that identity (e.g. long time visa holders and undocumented folks). Also, these aren't ethnicities, so I don't use country of citizenship (P27) (though many do). Another situation this would help in is when people's ethnicities, nationalities, and country of citizenship may be different. In the case of Aysa Hakimjan (Q105871598), no references are given to confirm Aysa's / Aisa's legal status as having been a Russian or Finnish citizen. Aysa is ethnically Tatar, immigrated to Finland at age 20/21, and is known as a "Finnish Tatar artist." Aysa's Wikidata does list both Russian Federation and Finland as country of citizenship (P27), but I personally would feel uncomfortable adding these statements because of the implication of legal status, which may be untrue, difficult to confirm, or irrelevant to their defacto citizenship or identity. Sonoet2 (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply