This article is about British National (Overseas) status, a nationality that was only obtainable by British subjects in the former colony of Hong Kong before its return to China in 1997. It's a rather peculiar status that doesn't actually give its holders a legal right to live in the UK. I've recently put in a good amount of work into the entire article and was able to get it past its GA review, and I believe it's up to par with the FA criteria as well. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
Suggest adding alt text
Not seeing a strong rationale for including the non-free image - other images such as the BN(O) passport could illustrate the concept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to add that the only distinguishing feature between a British citizen passport vs a BN(O) passport is the heading that "European Union", which is definitely going to be problematic in about two weeks. I could use the inside page of a BN(O) passport, but I believe any (not sure?) passport image falls under Crown copyright and would thus be non-free. Horserice (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note about when BN(O) was created it kind of hidden (I didn't notice it mentioned until a second read over). I'd argue that it should be made more prominent, and also seems like something to add to the lead; for the latter, perhaps start the second paragraph like: "This nationality was created in 1985(?) to allow Hong Kong residents..."
Sure, I added the year in the lead.
In the Background section, is there anything that can be added relating to the earlier class of citizenship (if any) that residents of Hong Kong had?
Moved up that part from the Controversy section.
"While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status,[10] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible." Is there any way to expand on why so many were ineligible? I would assume it has to do with Chinese nationality law, but that isn't clear.
The only requirement was actually just being a BDTC. Not sure how else to elaborate on that?
"Hong Kong residents and legislators, with some supporters in Parliament, believed that granting full British citizenship would have been more appropriate for instilling confidence in Hong Kong's post-handover future and that residents should be offered a choice to continue living under British rule." From the context of the sentence, shouldn't the bolded be "should have been," as it talks about a past event?
" transfer of sovereignty in 1997". You should specify "to China".
Done.
"This nationality was created in 1985 to allow Hong Kong residents to retain a relationship with the United Kingdom after the territory was returned to China. This is vague and not supported in the main text. I suggest replacing it with a summary of the rights conferred by the status.
Changed this line.
"3.4 million BN(O)s enjoy British consular protection when travelling outside of Hong Kong." WP:NUMBERS states that a sentence should not start with a figure.
Added "About" before this and also changed the figure.
"When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898". This paragraph is confusing unless you explain that Hong Kong Island was then a permanent British possession.
Added context.
"subjects in Hong Kong became BDTCs". You explain BDTC below but you should do so at first mention.
Moved abbreviation explanation to first instance.
"number of active status holders" What does active mean here?
It was an attempt to be more polite about saying living status holders. Changed it to that instead.
"Individuals who did not acquire Chinese nationality (generally non-ethnic Chinese)" The term "non-ethnic Chinese" is confusing. I would take it to mean a Chinese citizen who is not ethnically Chinese, but you appear to use it to mean anyone who is not ethnically Chinese.
Changed it to "those not ethnically Chinese". The document provided in the citation for that line uses "non-ethnic Chinese" and the term also appears throughout Hong Kong government documents. I see your point on it being confusing though, and this change should address that.
Spotchecks: I have carried out a number of spotchecks against the sources, and in the main they check out. I have identified a few issues:
Ref 2, Carroll 2007, pp. 15–21: ARTICLE: The territory initially consisted only of Hong Kong Island and was expanded to include Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. SOURCE: The expansion to include Kowloon appears on p. 24 of source so perhaps the page range needs adjusting.
Adjusted pages.
Ref 16, Lord Avebury, "British Citizenship", col. WA213.: ARTICLE: While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status... SOURCE appears to say something different: "There are 3.4 million BN(O)s, most of whom live in Hong Kong. Therefore by deduction there are approximately 2.6 million BN(O)s in Hong Kong without a passport"
Changed phrasing to say that 3.4 million acquired the status.
Ref 24b: ARTICLE: If given indefinite leave to remain (ILR), they are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons and local government. SOURCE: Unable to confirm from source
Used a different source to address this.
Links: all links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
This has some decent support for promotion thus far, but needs further review soon or it will need to be archived as it's been open for over a month. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain(talk)19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Horserice: "How to get more reviewers" is a dilemma as old as FAC itself... but it doesn't hurt to be proactive. Some folks have good luck asking active editors at relevant wikiprojects, or authors of other Featured articles in the same topic area. Sometimes you can attract reviews by reviewing other candidates as well. --Laser brain(talk)20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HiNick, it looks like the nominator has addressed some (or most) or your comments, can you let me know how it looks now? Perhaps Ceoil as well given you shared some concerns re. comprehensiveness... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated stuff, but well written overall. There could be a little bit more explanation at some places for people like me who have absolutely no idea. But I understand that this is a very specialized topic.
These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – what do you mean with "these areas", both Hong Kong and the peninsula?
These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – Is the mentioned transfer the same as the cede to the United Kingdom? If not, when was the transfer? I have a hard time understanding this.
Registration confers citizenship otherwise than by descent, meaning that children born outside of the UK to those successfully registered will be British citizens by descent. I understand the second half of this, but why does "otherwise than by descent" mean this, when it would appear to mean the opposite?
Yeah, the government probably could've come up with better wording but this is the actual term used in legislation and Home Office literature.
BN(O)s who did not hold and had not lost any other citizenship or nationality on or before 19 March 2009: what is the force of "had not lost"? It appears to be superfluous. If this is the language in the source, that's fine, but it doesn't seem necessary.
Ah, I meant to cover the case where BN(O)s that have other citizenships renounce them after 2009 and then attempt to register as British citizens. Changed it up there to better describe that.
The mention of the master nationality rule in the lead doesn't seem to exactly match what's in the body. The section on China talks about Chinese nationality law rather than the British master nationality rule, and the lead doesn't mention that consular protection is not available in Hong Kong.
Tweaked it to be a bit more accurate.
BN(O)s who are Chinese nationals must use a Mainland Travel Permit to enter mainland China: does this apply only to those "treated as Chinese nationals under Chinese nationality law", or would it also apply if a BN(O) acquired full Chinese citizenship?
There's no distinction between nationals and citizens in Chinese nationality law. It's just that any BN(O) with Chinese nationality (which means only BN(O)s who were of Chinese descent at the time of the handover) must use that permit. For the second part of your question, if a BN(O) voluntarily acquires Chinese nationality, that person is required to renounce all other nationalities, so the person in question would then only be a Chinese national and would have to use the permit anyways.
In the Taiwan section, suggest making the second sentence "As such, BN(O)s are required to..." to clarify that this is not an exception to the "identical immigration controls" statement.
This a very legalese and narrowly written, dry, article about a hugely emotive topic. Why is this- the legislation was not arrived at by bureaucratic drones solely from deductive reasoning. There is mere lip service to the wider political forces, and almost no coverage of the very emotional and extensive internal cultural debates. This oppose Is actionable per 1.b - comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very technical because, well, British nationality law is a mess of if-else conditions that are a pain to sift through and this article is about one of those nationality classes. It's fair to bring up the charged atmosphere leading up to the handover and the negotiations for it, but I don't believe full coverage of that falls under the scope of this article. The BN(O) nationality is merely a result of the situation and those negotiations. All of that should really be covered in the Handover of Hong Kong article. Horserice (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think it adds a bit more context and colour. The writing overall is clear and concise; although there is repetition in places (eg British Citizenship" appearing within sentences and in consecutive sentences, its an issue I cannot myself see a resolution for without sacrificing clarity. Moving to support. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting article, but would benefit from being fleshed out further:
The "Background" section is probably too focused on political issues, and not the related social issues.
Merged with Controversy section.
For instance: "Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) had the unrestricted right to enter and live in any British territory" - yes, but in practice non-white migration to the UK was rare, and those who did so often faced massive racism and occasional threats of violence. The restrictions were brought in when non-whites began to enter the UK in sizeable numbers.
Added an aside to reference this.
"Controversy" sections are generally discouraged in all articles, and especially FAs. It would be better to weave this material into the body of the article.
Merged with Background section.
I tend to agree with Ceoil's comment above. The content of this section seems somewhat compressed. The issue of whether the UK could actually bestow citizenship on Hongkongers without breaching the agreements with China seems particularly important.
Expanded detail on impact of Tiananmen and attitudes towards the handover. Added more on question about breaching Joint Declaration.
At present the article gives the views of the UK government, and the views of groups seeking change. What do independent experts think about the truth of the matter? Has it ever been tested in court? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Chinese government's view on it. I haven't been able to find any academic material that specifically examines if a general grant of citizenship would violate the Joint Declaration, but given that BNSS grants were already considered a violation by the Chinese, it's pretty clear that a broader grant would also be considered as such by them. From the material I've been able to go through, scholars work off of the assumption that residents of Chinese ethnicity are excluded from further citizenship grants and go on to address the question of nationality for non-Chinese residents (see p. 203, p. 171). Post-handover UK government documents also suggest this (para. 15, p. 74). There is no court of arbitration specified in the treaty, so any issues can only be directly addressed by the British and Chinese governments. Horserice (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the 'Restrictions' section is a bit unclear - why were these countries singled out? It would be good to start such a section with a summary of the situation (e.g., BN(O) holders have the same rights as other Hongkongers, except for the following ... ). Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a lead to that section. Reasons for singling out areas:
UK - country imposes restrictions on its own nationals, so these should be specified
Hong Kong - acquiring nationality specifically dependent on residency here, but there could still be restrictions imposed
China - almost all BN(O)s are now also Chinese, so any restrictions placed on dual BN(O)-Chinese nationals apply to almost all BN(O)s at large
EU - usually, all nationals of an EU country are EU citizens, but not in this case
" to justify that granting it would not be a violation of that agreement" - "justify" isn't the right word here. Something like "argue" might work better.
Done.
"These arrangements for nationality were compared unfavorably to the situation of Macau" - passive voice, and unclear as a result (who was making this comparison?)
Rewrote in active voice.
"Hong Kong legislators and their supporters in Parliament" is confusing: a) is this referring to all Hong Kong legislators, including those who are pretty much appointed by the Chinese Government? b) it's not clear how legislators are not in parliament? (do you mean the UK parliament?) Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a) Colonial-era Legislative Councillors, so none at that point were appointed by the Chinese government. b) wikilinked Legislative Council of Hong Kong in article text, so that the distinction should be clear between legislators in that chamber and those in Parliament Horserice (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike other British nationalities, persons with BN(O) status are entitled to hold a British passport " - this seems unclear given that British people obviously hold British passports Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other British nationals first receive a certificate of registration/naturalization and have to apply separately for passports. I rephrased that part to be more clear.
Still unclear. Surely UK nationals don't need a certificate of registration before getting a passport? What's meant by "British nationals"? - presumably this is British nationals other than British citizens? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that is exactly what I'm saying. All British nationals, except BN(O)s and including British citizens, are first issued certificates of registration before they can apply for passports. Having a British passport isn't a right, but BN(O)s have a unique entitlement to hold passports of that status. Here's a Home Office document on the definition of "British national". Wikilinked the term in the article to be more explicit to what it's referring to. Horserice (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But British nationals appears to include British citizens? As the technical language here is confusing, using it makes the text hard to follow. Something along the lines of "BN(O)s are entitled to hold a British passport, a right available only to them and British citizens" (this is probably clunky as well and likely not precise enough, but hopefully illustrates what I'm getting at). Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, English is hard. Stopped using "British national" here and changed it to say that members of all the other nationality classes don't have this right. Yes, even British citizens don't possess British passports as a right. Horserice (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
