Talk:British National (Overseas)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Long winded version of 2009

I suggest that this article needs tidying up. It is much too long-winded. --Whimsical Oracle (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please consider moving some of the material from British nationality law and Hong Kong to this article, now that the BN(O) section has its own article. --Kvasir (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

passport article

I have separated the passport info from the nationality info and moved the passport info to a new wiki. I felt this was good practice to keep the differences sharp; just as the nationality and passport wikis of virtually all other nationalities are separated. The passport version still has also the info visa free travel, which should in time go to a visa policy for British Nationals (Overseas) per consensus on the talk:passport L.tak (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The visa-free travel info is in Visa requirements for British citizens which Visa requirements for British Nationals (Overseas) redirects to. If therefore changed your recent edit from redlink Visa policy for British Nationals (Overseas) to wikilink Visa requirements for British Nationals (Overseas) on British National (Overseas) passport. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

British National (Overseas) and British National (Overseas) passport

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep as two articles. Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 11:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

BN(O) and BN(O) passport are two different topic, one is about a nationality and one is a passport. They should be keep as two articles.RayYung (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article "British passport" can be a substitute of article "British National (Overseas) passport".112.119.71.198 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, please leave it alone, the two topics cover different things. Just like Citizenship in the United States and United States passport. Da Vynci (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disaggree, BN(O) and BN(O) passport are two different topic, one is about a nationality and one is a passport. They should be keep as two article. RayYung (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of Citizenship/Nationality and Passport (as a derived right)

Although this suggestion of merger draws similiarities between British National (Overseas) as a nationality and passport, I would recommend keeping the two as seperate topics. In addition to the parallel argument that the United States's or German Citizenship differs from the US or German Passport, it should be noted that a British National (Overseas) does not necessarily hold a British National (Overseas) passport. As a consequence of this, I have edited both pages, British National (Overseas) and British National (Overseas) passport, with the emphases on nationality and passport use respectively. British National (Overseas) as a nationality would address its brief historical background, means of ascending to the nationality, rights and statuses, and legal information. British National (Overseas) passport focuses on the passport's issue and application, practicalities, design and its visa arrangements. Any information regarding the rights as derived from possession of this passport, as I suggest, should be moved to the 'nationality' page. Danielmtse (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British National (Overseas). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British National (Overseas). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article

Recent edits made by User:Horserice have all but eliminated the history portion of this article, and it is unknown whether this move has WP:CONSENSUS among other editors. Please discuss below on whether you think this is necessary and the reasons behind your argument for the betterment of this article. Thank you. C-GAUN (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, they’re big changes and I can talk about them. The vast majority of the content in question was not cited or pointed to references that didn’t back up statements. The history section in particular had entire subsections left uncited. A background section is probably useful for this article, but any unsourced content can be boldly removed without consensus. There were also repeated mentions of the non-hereditary and voluntary nature of this nationality that I condensed into a single section. Horserice (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National (Overseas)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nova Crystallis (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing later. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't this article need {{zh}}, {{Chinese}}, etc.?
- Added a {{Chinese}} template. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the visa requirements link would be much better in the restrictions section, and the passport in the rights and privileges.
- Moved to those sections as See also links. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
"The status itself does not grant right of abode in either the United Kingdom or Hong Kong, but most BN(O)s possess either the right of abode or right to land in Hong Kong." Before the existence of the BN(O)?
- Clarified that they would have had residency when applying. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
MOS:NUMERAL: Write out integers less than nine.
- Done. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
How many Hongkongers still hold this nationality?
- Number (3.4 million) put in lead. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Assuming good faith on the offline sources, but it would be nice to have accessdates for all online sources.
- Added access dates for everything except sources with ISBN or DOI references. Also did not add for law citations because it doesn't seem to be the norm to do that for them, judging from all existing law citation templates and also ones already used in this article. Horserice (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Should be it unless I find something else. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE: The lead shouldn't have any citations, unless that's the only use of the source.
"Becoming a British National (Overseas) is no longer possible.[2] Acquisition was not an automatic process and eligible residents must have applied for the status between 1 July 1987 and the end of the registration period.[2]" Remove the reference in the middle, since both point to the same source.
- Both done. Horserice (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix these minor issues and I'll pass it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Passing. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! – Kaihsu (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

29 May 2020 Leave to Remain developments?

Home Office has announced here that if China follows through with national security law they will "explore options to allow BN(O)s to apply for leave to stay in the UK, if eligible, for an extendable period of 12 months". Reason given is "The UK government has made this move as the new security law will undermine the existing legal commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people." Media buzz is developing in UK papers. Watch out for Chinese response likely coming in a few hours. Wodgester (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of a BBC citation

The existing citation in the lead goes to this Hansard page. I am mystified by the edit summary “Passport office ref is more authoritative than a passing reference in a bbc article.” That may be so, but I did not take the existing reference out, I added to it, and the problem with it is that it is being relied on for the 2.9 million figure of those who are *eligible*, which I cannot find on the Hansard page. The BBC is a reliable source, and the citation supports the 2.9 million figure, so I shall add it back. Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're emphasizing eligibility. Those 2.9 million BN(O)s by definition are eligible for passports, but simply choose not to hold them. I also found the phrasing of your edits confusing: by listing that number as people eligible to hold BN(O) passports rather than just the total number of people with the nationality, that sentence could be read to imply that the status can still be obtained. Horserice (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible expansion

With possible expanded rights coming, I invite the editors who maintain this FA to decide what out of the Hong Kong national security law#British opposition section is pertinent to the topic of this article (likely Raab's terms and Johnson's statement), and if it would be appropriate to add it now. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think what's written here is sufficient since it summarises the current situation and lists the two concrete measures that the British government will take (12 month stay and right to work), while already citing Raab and Johnson, along with a statement from the Home Office. When the government elaborates on when these changes will take place and whether/what additional rights will be added, I will add more information then. Linking out to the British response to the national security law, as you've already done, should be a good enough pointer for readers looking for more information. Horserice (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)