Talk:British passport/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about British passport. 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.

Archive 1

Endorsements

The list of endorsements is not meant to include immigration stamps in the visa pages, whether from the UK or elsewhere - they can be distinguished from endorsements that are printed in the official observations page of the passport when it is issued by UKPA / overseas missions. Andrew Yong 07:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interviews

Is there no mention about having to have interviews when applying in the future? Skinnyweed 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed this (as I'm trying to apply at the moment). I think it starts this August and applies to anyone who hasn't had an adult passport before, but I'm not sure and there is absolutely nothing on their website about it.

Off topic: Has anyone tried top use their online passport application form (that is supposed to give you a printout to post to them--sophisticated!) which I though might be easier? It breaks all the time and resets itself so I've given up. Also http://passport.gov.uk (without www.) results in an IIS under-construction message.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Passport colour

Are there two classes of passport? I was issued a passport in December 2005 but it's not the standard burdgundy, its a sort of navy-blue. Anybody know the difference? Mark83 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing. Can you upload an image? Andrew Yong 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Entry Rights / Visa-Free Travel

This is a very handy list, but I 'promoted' the {{fact}} from the first sentence of this to a general {{verify}}, as the entire section needs references for each period quoted - idaelly from official government immigration sites from each location. --Salvadors 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also renamed it to "Entry Rights" as many of the countries listed do actually require visas (although most issue them on arrival). Feel free to rename again to something better. --Salvadors 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lookalike passports

A British passport endorse no British citizenship is still a British passport, not "lookalike". I suggest to use the word "Other British passports" instead. --Noblesham 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is the term used by the UK Passport Service: [1] Andrew Yong 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bno passport opage.jpg

Image:Bno passport opage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Visa requirements

Why is there no Russia in any of the lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.209.1 (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, is a table of visa requirements really appropriate for an encyclopedia? JAJ (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"All foreign nationals are required to have entry visas to travel to the Russian Federation" [2], since there's no visa-free entry, then obviously it won't be on any of the lists.--Cahk (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain VOA for BNO

I changed the listing to pre-arrival visa required, as http://www.evisa.gov.bh/VisaBhr3En.html only lists Hong Kong SAR passports, and while BNO is are not listed as seperate nationality, all citizens who are citizens solely of territories like the Cayman Islands, need a pre-arrival visa. Passportguy (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note : According to TimaticQatar only accepts passports that denote the bearer as being a "British Citizen" (as opposed to the earlier distinct between citizen and subject) for visa free travel, likely to mean full British citzien, not British Nationals Overseas. Unless someone can provide a source that lists BNO as among the visa-on-arrival nationalities, I'll change that in the table as well. Passportguy (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Monarchs

The British Monarch does not possess a passport, and nor does the U.S. Secretary of State apparently. What about:

monarchs of other countries (eg Spain)
other heads of state (eg the U.S. President)
a Governor-General (eg Australian passports are issued in the name of the Governor-General)
the British Foreign Secretary JAJ 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Governors-General/Governors/Lieutenant-Governors issue passports in the name of the Queen, not themselves. They hold passports.

The US President travels on an official passport.[3]

Mauls 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Neee jathi Galis badacow nee jathi guddan denga........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.1.220 (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason that they do not hold passports is because passports in these places are issued in the name of whoever. eg, in the UK, passports are issued in the name of the Queen, so the Queen does not need a passport, the same goes for the Commonwealth Realms. In the case of Australia, the Governer-General is issuing the passports in the name of the Queen, so presumably the Governer-General would still need a passport. The rule-of-thumb is that if passports are issued in their name, they don't need one, as technically, they could write something down on a piece of paper and it would legally be a passport (though may not fall under the UN's definitions) as it was issued by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksname (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Travel on an expired passport?

However, like expired passports, passports without blank pages that have not been cancelled are still valid ID, and therefore can be used as such in the UK and for travel in the EU.

Does this mean that an expired passport can be used for travel within the EU, or just that it can be used as ID whilst travelling in the EU on a current passport? boffy_b 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No it means that if a passport is full but is not expired, it can be used to travel throughout the EU, as no stamps are required if traveling to the EU. Nicksname (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia access rights

There is no Russia listing under the access rights coloured tables section.

Russia is normally listed under Europe (non-EU) since although most of it is "in" Asia, Moscow is considered to be Europe. Is Russia missing because a full VISA is needed unlike all these other countries which allow Brit passport holders in without or arrange them on the spot.

Surely it should still be listed even if the row is to be totally red. Are other countries missing too and is this deliberate?

--81.105.243.17 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - only countries that offer visa-free or visa-on-arrival travel are listed. Russia offers neither, so it is not included in a list of "visa-free" countries. Passportguy (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

As a British passport holder and Brit citizen, I have confirmed with people with experience of Swiss law, that I may only stay for up to 3 months each trip, 6 months each year. So why does the table say "unlimited access" as that implies I could stay forever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.243.17 (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you can. An an EU/EFTA citizen you can move to switzerland in the same way you can move to other EU countries. Passportguy (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can come and go as many times and as often as you want, that is "unlimited". After 3 months in Switzerland you have to register as a resident, and get a residence and work permit (Aufenthaltsbewilligung). But because of the "bilateral treaties" between Switzerland and the EU, they can't say "no" (so long as the number applying per year does not exceed a ceiling), your employer no longer has to prove they can't find a Swiss citizen for the job, as applies to non-EU citizens. See here [4], and the two pdf-documents linked to off this page.

If you don't want a job (if you are just a tourist), the three months limit is a bit of a farce. All you have to do is walk over the border, and 5 minutes later walk back, and the 3 months starts again. Or claim you stayed with a friend outside Switzerland for one night, there is no way to prove you didn't TiffaF (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for Switzerland its 3 months out of each 6 months. And Liechtenstein is part of the same customs union. Switzerland joining Schengen moves the border posts to Liechtenstein only - officially - but doesnt affect access and residency rights. Switzerland must issue residency permits to those getting jobs there or with enough funds etc. hence it is correct to have the switzerland entry say "unlimited access" like all other EU/EFTA countries even though its 3m out of 6m, but (very small area) Liechtenstein is only required to issue up to 28 permits per year to workers who want to live in FL itself. It can refused to issue more than that. This may be massively over or undersubscribed but the table should say for liechtenstein: 90 days out of six months, not just "90 days" as it says now, because the rules for length of stay for liech are THE SAME as for switzerland. So just putting 90 days is not completely accurate, yes? --LeedsKing (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New rules for travel to USA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7822794.stm

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/

The I-94 form is gone. Now there is an online electronic travel authority pre-clearance system like there is with Australia. New rules are effective from today 12 January 2009.

To reduce confusion, I think the 'Americas' table and the map on this page, and on the pages of other Visa Waiver Program countries should be altered to reflect that travellers need this new online authority to be completed SOME DAYS BEFORE THEY FLY and that the VWP is not the only hurdle.

--90.214.36.98 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

should we cancel the column of BN(O)

If BN(O) must be included in this article together with the column of British citizen passport (i.e. visa-free were given by certain countries), then why didn't we also write down BPP, BOTC, BOC, etc?

Without being granted the superior right of abode in the UK, BN(O)is NOT a British passport, but simply a piece of inferior travel document issued by the British government for ethnic Chinese living in Hong Kong with the Chinese nationality (i.e. People's Republic of CHINA) in which it is commonly recognised by both Chinese and British government as well as the joint declaration.

I suggest that the column of BN(O) should be cancelled as soon as possible. Oei888 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The rules: two passports, and sending old passport when renewing

I know that two passports can be held at the same time (the article said 6, but I wouldn't believe that without a reference). Also, agencies which organise passports say that an renewal can be supported by a passport up to 10 years old. But I've not found references to either of these matters on an official passport site. I have the impression that they're considered officially to be at the passport office's discretion, but in practice two at a time is always OK with supporting letter, and 10 years is always OK. Does anyone have proper information on this? Pol098 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fees section requires full set of prices

The Fees section is suspiciously incomplete. Given it had a incorrect percentage in it, I'm suspicious that it was either included by a partisan or was taken from a partisan source. This makes me wonder if the range of dates has been selected to give the appearance of a worse situation than actually exists. For example, the Conservative party may have increased then decreased the price of passports near the end of their term. Or Labour may have cut the price in 1997. We don't know. However, careful selection of date ranges is a classic method of deception described in "How to Lie with Statistics" as a "gee-whiz graph" [5]

Mr. Jones (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete visa-free travel section

I propose deleting the visa-free travel section. This article should properly be about the law and practise of the UK, not the immigration and visa controls of other countries. Moreover if there was scope for including this kind of information on Wikipedia, it only has a tenuous connection with possession of a passport; visa policies typically being based on having a certain nationality rather than having a passport. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is article is entitled British passport. It is not about the law and practise of the UK, it is about the British passport. In line with other Wikipedia articles on passports, it contains information about visa-free travel with this passport. Therefore, I believe that the visa-free travel section should not be deleted. Qwerta369 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a circular argument. Having visa information on other articles doesn't justify its presence either there or here. And in any case not all passport article have this kind of information (see: Irish passport for example). There is no such thing as visa-free travel with a British passport or any other passport. It simply doesn't exist. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as visa-free travel with a British passport or any other passport. It simply doesn't exist." - Why do you believe this to be so? Qwerta369 (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Because visa-free travel exists for British citizens not British passport holders. A passport is only a document which provides evidence of citizenship. Having one doesn't entitle the holder to any rights. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel you may be trying to argue semantics. Visa-free travel exists for British citizens who carry either a National Identity Card or a British passport which describes them as a British citizen (exceptions exist for movement within the Common Travel Area, but I suspect you are well aware of this). Possession of a passport may not, in itself, convey any rights of visa-free travel, but it assists (and is usually necessary) in visa-free travel for the holder. You may also note that the visa-free travel section in this article is split, so as to correctly display the visa-free travel which may be accessed by those who hold a British passport which describes them as a British citizen, and those who hold a British passport which describes them as having another form of British nationality.Qwerta369 (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not semantics. It is fundamental. If the kind of visa information should be on Wikipedia at all. It certainly shouldn't be here! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. This issue has recently been debated at Talk:Passport following notification at CENT. The clear consensus is for the removal of these sections from all national passport articles. RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be considerable dissatisfaction with the removal of the sections on this topic. See Talk:Passport/Archive_3#Undoing_the_removal_of_visa-free_information? for instance. Can you give a brief reason why this has been done? The one given is that they are unmaintainable. All very well, but if they are maintained, how does that stand up? This looks a bit like a bunch of 16 or so people have got together to purge these sections. Why? Mr. Jones (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. The sections were not deleted as initially proposed, (as you will see if you continue to follow that debate). Skip forward to Talk:Passport/Archive 3#Finalised proposal to fork articles (Edward's compromise agreement). There seems to be almost universal satisfaction with the new arrangement (of 6 months standing) which was the result of (sometimes heated) discussion. The 'Visa sections' have been split to their own articles, and there should be links to them at the 'See also' sections of Passport articles, eg British passport#See also where you will find a link to Visa requirements for British citizens. RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Printed photos

I've added a fact tag on a couple of mentions of the replacement of actual photographs with printed digital images in 1998. This is because I have in my possession a passport issued in 2000 with an actual photo under the laminate on the inside back cover.

Do we have a source to back up the 1998 claim? -- LondonStatto (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

discussion on content/renaming Visa requirements for British citizens and European Union visa lists

I started a discussion on the visa requirements wiki about possible renaming; and inclusion of visa requirements for all types of British passports. Feel free to discuss here. A somewhat similar discussion is running here for the European Union visa lists L.tak (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

heading for "normal British passports"

I have noticed that you changed the subheading in the Physical Appearance section of "Passports issued by the IPS and FCO" to "Passports issued by the UK". However, I have reverted this change because "UK" is an ambiguous term. The definition of "United Kingdom passport" as given in Paragraph 7(a)(ii) of Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981 is any British passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or the Lieutenant-Governor of any Crown Dependency or the Government of a British dependent territory within the meaning of the Act. By specifiying the IPS and FCO, I think it would make it absolutely clear to any reader that the passport being described is issued directly by the Government of the United Kingdom, and not the Government of a Crown Dependency/Overseas Territory. Bonus bon (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC) [NB: L.tak moved the above text form his talk page, to have the discussion here...]

I am not entirely happy with Passports issued by the IPS and FCO as it is not IPS who issues but UKPA (whatever that may be; see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/EN/1611/viewImage_36691.html). Furthermore, I wonder if BOTC (/Crown dependencies) passports can be issued overseas as well by FCO so I could imagine that also here the statement is not fully defining. I agree however that UK is not the best alternative in view of the definition of the british nationality act... Any alternative? L.tak (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Passports issued by the UK" is wrong for another reason. Passports issued to full British Citizens who live permanently outside the UK are issued by British Embassies, but these are normal full passports. I have such a passport myself, issued by the British Consulate in Geneva. The current procedure is that you apply to the Embassy, but the passport is manufactured in the UK (in order to get all the latest security features), then sent back to the embassy who send it on to you. So it is not "issued in the UK", but is a "Full Passport", with the same entitlements as one issued in the UK. TiffaF (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

British Passport -- validity on change of name

can you carry on using your passport in your old name if you change your name to another —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.82.221 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In the U.K. you can change your name simply by starting to use the new name; there is no formal requirement to make the change "official". If you have changed your name unofficially then you would normally have a passport in your old name, which is still valid.

If, on the other hand, you do officially change your name by a deed of change of name (also called a "deed poll" or "change of name deed"), then you cannot use a passport in your old name. I don't know whether this is a requirement on use of the passport per se, but it's definitely a requirement of the deed, which must include language along the lines of [6]:

"I shall at all times hereafter in all records deeds documents and other writings and in all actions and proceedings as well as in all dealings and transactions and on all occasions whatsoever use and subscribe the said name of new name in full as my name in subsitution for my former name of old name in full so relinquished as aforesaid to the intent that I may hereafter be called known or distinguished not by the former name of old name in full but by new name in full only."

(It can have commas. Mine does :-) --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Identity and Passport Service policy on changes of name is currently here. (This is mainly about what you need to do to prove to them that you have a new name changed by deed; it doesn't directly address the issue of whether a passport in your old name is still valid.) --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why two pictures?

Does anyone know why we have two pictures? One is described as "The front cover of the current British biometric passport issued since 2010" and the other is described as "The front cover of a British biometric passport (2006-2010 version)". But, as far as I can see, they are actually the same. Is there something different in the appearance of British passports issued since 2010? Qwerta369 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed duplication of pictures. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bermuda passport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bermuda passport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Anguillan passport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Anguillan passport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jersey passport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jersey passport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:British Passport cover 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:British Passport cover 2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:British-passport.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:British-passport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Does the nationality section in UK citizen passports say "United Kingdom" or their respective countries ie "Wales" or "Scotland"?Nicksname (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It lists the type of UK citizenship, e.g. "British citizen". Passportguy (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter what Part of the United Kingdom you were born in (England,Scotland Wales, Northern Ireland your Passport is endosed "BRITISH CITIZEN") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.99.190 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am Welsh, but such is NOT defined by law. Only our British nationality is. We are all British citizens accordingly. We move around and have parents with roots elsewhere etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.95 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Format of passport number?

This is a fairly long article, but it doesn't yet address one of the main topics a reader is likely to be researching: what format is used for British passport numbers? From my research elsewhere, it appears to be 9 digits (at least since 2002), but I can't tell if there are exceptions, or what older formats might still be in circulation, or whether special categories of passports such as diplomatic passports use a different format entirely. Would a knowledgeable person please consider adding that information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.196.253 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Biometric passport?

The article doesn't make it clear whether a currently issued British passport is or isn't a biometric one. Britishpassportquestion (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Biometetric passports were introduced in 2006 and the documents have a 5 or 10 year validity. So the answer to the question is "it depends". By 2016 the answer will be 100% yes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two passports?

I actually thought it was possible to apply for two British passports, in case you want to travel to a country that would object to certain other countries' stamps in your passport, but I see no mention of this on the passport service website. Was this ever possible, and if so, when/why was it changed? 217.155.20.163 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can have 2 British Passports if you were:

BDTC/BOTCs and were subsequently given British Citizen status and thus 2 passports derive from 2 different status

You acquired a British status (ie. BN(O) or BOC) and have naturalized as British Citizen and again, derive 2 passports from 2 different status. This will not be the case if one is a British subject or BPP since they will lose that status upon acquiring another nationality.

Otherwise, you can't have 2 passports of the same nationality in any country for that matter. --Cahk 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Persons with Israeli stamps in their passport are allowed to have a second passport if they are doing to a country that does NOT allow passports with Israeli stamps in them. i.e. saudi and Iran and other arab countries --92.104.255.38 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This. Back in the days of apartheid I knew someone who used one for travel to Israel & South Africa and the other for everywhere else. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong - the UK frequently issues second UK passports to people who travel a lot and need to send them off for visas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.228.141 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Type?

I noticed on the British Passport Information that amongst most of the detail I understand, there's the term Type. What does Type mean as I've never travelled outside of a Passport-required Country before and it seems difficult to understand --94.3.149.150 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Type = Type of document. P = Passport. Alternative types include Indentity Card. There are not any British Identity Cards, but there are for other countries. TiffaF (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this article about the UK passport called 'British Passport'?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has citizens and passport holders who are from Great Britain, and thus are British, and it also has citizens and passport holders from Northern Ireland, who are not British. This article is misnamed. It's like calling an article about US passports 'Texas passport' - Texas is only one part of the US. Great Britain is only one part of the UK.182.240.29.141 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

NOT BRITISH? Please? What are these people from Northern Ireland then ? Do NOT say Irish, which will incur the wrath of any Loyalist!!!!If someone from Northern Ireland has a British/UK passport, they are a British citizen and British accordingly. Northern Ireland is not simply an add on, but part of the UK. The Union in question is BETWEEN GB and NI. Simple!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.95 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, they're always referred to as a "British passport", and always have been. Secondly, this article runs with the usual meaning of "British passport", in that it isn't just about passports issued by or in relation to the UK proper, but is also about passports issued by the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (which are not identical). Thirdly, citizens of the UK proper are formally known as a "British citizen" regardless of which part of the UK they're from. Fourthly, individuals who do not have a connection with the UK proper but do have a nationality status in connection with a Crown dependency or with a British Overseas Territory are said to have "British nationality" regardless of their ethnicity or place of residence. Fifthly, a significant proportion of people in Northern Ireland self-identify as "British".

The adjective "British" does not simply pertain to the island of Great Britain.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Plain ignorant. People in Northern Ireland ARE BRITISH. Nationalists do apply for Irish passports, but to say NOT British is illinformed! To clarify British is the adjective relating to the UK, and NOT just the island of GB. Where are some of these people from? This is basic stuff. Dare I guess the USA? When such people, in parts of the world, are not saying England, incorrectly when they mean the UK, they say Great Britain?? In the UK, or BRITAIN for short, we do not overdo the "Great Britain" term when we mean the whole country (ie the whole UK). FYI, pre EU passports were headed BRITISH PASSPORT and had the same country name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland below.It is common to refer to one now as either a British or a UK passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.95 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The should probably view this video. The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained | CaribDigita (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article is not called "Great British passport", so it does not necessarily refer to Great Britain. You do know that Great Britain and Ireland are referred to as the "British Isles"? --77.109.64.36 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In former times all these peoples were entitled to British passports: British subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

BN(O)

I deleted the line where it saids BN(O) are legally ENTITLED to such British Passport. It should be noted that ALL British nationalities have the right to a passport but the Government can request the Queen to invoke her Royal Prerogative power to refuse a passport.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahk (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The operative word in the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 (1986/948) [7] is in fact "entitled", but be that as it may, the words "may not be refused" or any words to that effect are certainly inadmissible pseudo-legalistic original research (not even if it came from Laurie Fransman's many British nationality works!) Only a court of law in the United Kingdom can really decide whether the Home Secretary has the right to withdraw, revoke or withheld a British passport from a British National (Overseas), or not, without having to instead issue proceedings to deprive by order or otherwise that particular person of his British nationality, in the form of the status of being a British National (Overseas). Of course, the 1986 Order (1986/948) is only after all an Order-in-Council, and all the Home Secretary would have to do is to lay out another draft Order-in-Council before both Houses of Parliament and the Privy Council (since the Royal Assent has never been withheld for at least the last 100 years), if she wishes to restrict the right to a British passport by a British National (Overseas). -- Urquhartnite (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Official Government Document Pointing Out Significant Features Of British Passports

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484337/Basic_passport_checks_1988_-2016.pdf

Guidance issued 9 December 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AF8:1:1500:0:0:0:4239 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British passport. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229050504/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British passport. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426202326/http://visas.atpi.com/atppassport/passportadvice.aspx to http://visas.atpi.com/atppassport/passportadvice.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statutory basis vs royal prerogative?

Theresa May said here [8] (cited in the article to explain about royal prerogative) “There is no entitlement to a passport and no statutory right to have access to a passport. The decision to issue, withdraw, or refuse a British passport is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary) under the Royal Prerogative.” Despite this, the Citizens' Rights Directive 2004/38/EC provides in Article 4(3) “Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card or passport stating their nationality.” This is not directly applicable in the UK, but there must be UK law (usually statute) to implement this. I do not know whether this has been used as the statutory basis to oblige the UK to issue passports to its nationals (as defined thus) in the courts. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Current passport cover image

The current image (as of 6 February 2017) is of the first biometric passport cover first issued in 2006 and according to User:Qwerta369 the cover of the 2010 second edition biometric passport has an identical cover. It would make sense to have the image of the currently issued cover but I am having a difficulty in providing one. I scanned one of the cover issued since December 2015 but when I tried adding it User:St170e said it was not a good quality picture to be used. The post-2015 cover features raised print as a security measure so providing a good quality scan might be difficult. Tk420 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tk420: I've removed your image because the text on the front of the passport is not black. The current passport image that is shown is the post-2015 passport cover. It isn't a great quality because the passport cover is protected by Crown Copyright so the resolution is very low. Note, that the scan you've uploaded to WP is copyrighted and cannot be used unless it complies with non-free image rules. st 170e 14:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@St170e: Since your last revert my image has had its size reduced by User:DatBot as a non-free image with the previous version to be deleted on 15 February. I am confused as to why the image was removed for not having black text. No recent British passport has had black text on the cover apart from the identity cards issued as part of collective passports.Tk420 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tk420: Please stop using this image on the article. The image that is used is already the post-2015 passport and there is absolutely no need to change it. Furthermore, the front of the British passport has gold printing - your scan shows the gold as black. Therefore it cannot be used. Your editing is purely disruptive. st 170e 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I can see no reason why the proposed reteurn to a blue passport needs a separate article, other than political puffery.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - better that the political posturing and puffery stays quarantined elsewhere than that it contaminates a factual article. Cabayi (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the political puffery would need to be included. IMO that article is nothing but political puffery; the intention is to remove such muck.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point and that of Bondegezou but believe, in the current Brexit climate, while blue passports have taken on a fetish-like status, the puffery will be a recurrent problem. Cabayi (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support. In response to Cabayi, we can take out the unnecessary puffery in the merger. The solution to WP:CFORK is not quarantining, but excision! Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The references to "puffery" and, worse, "muck" by the proposer of said merger, already pointedly display a lack of neutrality, and quite demonstrably, of assumption of good faith also. Rather than the back-door subversion, stated clearly as the intention ("removal of muck", or "excision"), of removing the facts that one doesn't enjoy via a calculated merger into a non-political article as a form of preferred-narrative cleansing; come fairly into the arena of the article itself, and see which facts are not judiciously referenced and sourced. Though there would be a strong case for said users to recuse themselves from such activity already.Mdmadden (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Muck I said and muck I meant. Puffery I said and puffery I meant. As to neutrality; pots, kettles.TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment There is a separate discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Proposed_return_of_traditional_blue_British_passports with strong support for merging. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Support - although the article has some merit, I believe that it is actually trying to make a relatively minor point about passports into a bigger issue, in the same was that the Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom does. The title gives away that it isn't really NPOV, even though it does attempt to explore both sides of the argument. I believe that it should be merged. Shritwod (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Support No need for a content fork here. Number 5 7 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Under what Wikipedia criteria? The fork's already been made and edited from the British passport page, so that solves that issue. The main article will allow the political, symbolism and campaigning nature of the issue to be separate from the functionality of the passport article. Mdmadden (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Support. A new colour is worth mentioning here and in the Brexit effects article, but I see no reason why this would merit its own article when we can treat it at both places.... L.tak (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Recency. If I decided to be bold and remove this in let's say 5 years, nobody would bat an eyelid. Also, if it turns out it's going to stay, I think "traditional" is a loaded word in this context. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It's justified for this to have its own article in my opinion. Agree with Mdmadden, references to "muck" and "puffery" is pretty distasteful.. please try to be even a little neutral CyboDuck (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's rather strange that you suddenly reappear on Wikipedia three months after your most recent edits, which were also regarding a deletion/merger discussion on another article that Mdmadden created. Could you explain how you two are linked, because it's quite clear that you are. Number 5 7 16:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As that's quite an extraordinary claim User:Number 57, I'll declare that I personally have no knowledge of this clearly well-researched assertion of yours. I'm sure the user can speak for themselves, although I appreciate their agreed sentiment that the abuse of the other said user (describing contributions as "muck") is indeed in very poor taste, and would no doubt have attracted wide-spread condemnation and even warning in different circumstances, or rather a different user, with a different opinion. At my count, there's 7 users who've written here from the previous deletion/merger you alluded to. Mdmadden (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been an admin long enough to spot an obvious meatpuppet when one appears. I'll leave others to look at their contribution history (and yours) and judge for themselves. Number 5 7 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

British citizen passport

It appears to me that the other forms of British nationality have their separate passport articles. Could we maybe have this article for the British citizen passport and have a hat-note with a link to the other passport articles?

I.e. 'This article is about the passport for British citizens. For other British passports, see....'

This seems to work better because at the moment, it's just confusing because there's just too many different styles. st 170e 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on British passport. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Where to describe images on visa pages?

For the 2006 version, the description of curlew etc is within the timeline section. For the 2015 the description of the very elaborate images is within "European format passports". I don't know which location is better, but consistency would be good. PamD 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on British passport. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British passport. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Blue passports

I'm aware that its a very contentious issue in the farce that is current political discourse in the UK, but the announced new passports are clearly not the same colour as the old one, being many shades lighter. Does anyone have sources referring to pantones, or similar? Or can we have a side-by-side image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no proposal, just photoshopped images by tabloids as far as I understand.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement about whether the passport was blue or black, as well. An authoratative source on what the colour really was would be useful. Currently the fact that it was "blue" is cited to a dubious home office application form. — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the design of the new blue British passport hasn't actually been released yet. The image released in December by the Home Office was only a mock-up of what the new passport would look like, but the passport contract is currently out for tender and the final design will be released in March. I think we should hold off until then before comparing passport images.With regards to the blue/black passport, there is general disagreement on which colour it was. On the online British passport application, it says 'blue/black' but the Home Office later issued a rebuttal, stating that it's always been blue. st 170e 13:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aren't there still old passports to be found so that this can be established by analyzing physical copies? --Twofortnights (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There are pictures online of the old passport which appear to be black, see here for the Evening Standard. But, the government departments are insisting the passport was always blue. st 170e 13:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos aren't reliable, if you google Indian passports you will get the same results, some look black, some look navy. It would be the best to find an old passport and check it through photometry for the exact shade.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the access to the physical copy so I can't verify, but it'd be good if someone else could. For reference, this is the Home Office's rebuttal and this is an article from The Telegraph saying that the passport gets darker as it ages. But, that's the only thing we have access to at the moment. st 170e 13:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've still got my last one (issued a few years after the Burgundy one was released due to stocks running out, or something). It is impossible to discern it as anything other than black to the naked eye ... except on one frayed corner ... and I'm not sure if that's fading or the material under the outer coating, this after 20 odd years of ageing. I do not recall it ever having been any other colour, and I struggle with the idea it would darken with age (not registered with the Telegraph, so can't check their rationale). That's a photo of mine in the article. The colour is described as "Navy blue" officially, which it evidently isn't, but I suppose it is possible it is some sort of incredibly dark blue just a shade or two short of true black. As others said, the mock ups are just daft guesses for newspapers. Unless it's some sort Orwellian experiment in newspeak .. "If they'll believe black is blue is black, we can get away with anything, ANYTHING I TELL YOU!". Interestingly, it's not the only passport described as blue that really looks black, check Croatia's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki benguin (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any better examples than Cliff Richard for stage names?

Given that Cliff Richard is no longer a British Citizen is there any better examples of people with stage names for passports who are British Citizens? C. 22468 Talk to me 22:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Visa Map

Hello. There is a mistake on the visa map. I frequent Australia on a regular basis and a visitor visa is required before arrival. As a result it should be marked as grey on the map. --JetBlast (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The European Commission, based on the complaints of some member states ruled that the eVisitor is not to be considered an equivalent of a visa. Should the British Government take a different stance we will amend the map.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Collective passport

In the most recent revision my image File:British collective passport card cover (2005).jpg was removed without a reason being provided. There is also currently no mention of collective passports in the article although they are mentioned in the passport article using the UK as an example. In the context of the UK group passports (as they are also known) are issued to groups such as schools for 5 to 50 individuals aged under 18 who are British citizens and led by a group leader over the age of 21 and are valid for travel around the EEA and Switzerland. I found the article on Gov.uk, cited by the passport article on Wikipedia suggesting they are still issued at present. In the event of their discontinuation they could then be mentioned in History and an image moved to 'defunct types and older versions' in the gallery. My image is of an ID card which was part of a group passport (as my school called them) issued in 2005. The light green cover must have started after the white cover from 2001 in the 'old and defunct' section but I have not seen an image of a more recent card (if they have changed since). Tk420 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tk420: please give urls for what you are referring to. Errantius (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I already have cited the gov.uk article for collective passport which can be accessed using reference number 9 in the article.Tk420 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So you can add this info. Though as to the image see below on copyright. Errantius (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyrights

Query the copyright status of copies of passport covers, at least those less than 50 years old. The British government's Open Government Licence specifically exempts (excludes) from the licence "identity documents such as the British Passport". Errantius (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The cover of the post-Brexit British Citizen passport has been reproduced here, but it seems ok for copyright since it is from a Home Office website. However, as to "own work" photos of earlier covers, I repeat my warning—with quotation from the Open Government Licence and with my emphasis in the last item:

Exemptions
This licence does not cover:

personal data in the Information;

Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;

departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;

military insignia;

third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;

other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and

identity documents such as the British Passport

Errantius (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

#Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories

I suggest that this section be split, since the eligibility criteria and the histories are different: into a section on Crown Dependencies and a section on Overseas Territories. The section on Crown Dependencies should explain the common category "Islander status". Although please touch this only if you have relevant expertise (I used to know something about UK immigration law, so have some idea of what is involved, but am out of date). Errantius (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Collective passport image

It has come to my attention that my image of a collective passport ID card cover has recently been removed without discussion and without a reason being provided. I have already discussed the relevance of the image in the archived discussion Talk:British passport/Archive 1#Collective passport. The only change since then has been my citation of the collective passport article on gov.uk which is now reference number 66 in the British passport article.

Regarding the position of the image in the article, I have moved the images of both the emergency passport and collective passport covers to their current positions to make them appear next to the relevant sections when reading the article on a mobile device. I apologise for editing the article more than once on this but I normally edit Wikipedia on a PC, which I find easier, and I needed to save the edits before I could check them on the Wikipedia app for Android. Tk420 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Colour black or blue

Something like the former cover colour, a blue so deep that it could be taken for black, seems to have been familiar to George Bernard Shaw around 1901. A stage direction at the beginning of Man and Superman explains that Mr Roebuck Ramsden "wears a black frock coat, a white waistcoat (it is bright spring weather), and trousers, neither black nor perceptibly blue, of one of those indefinitely mixed hues which the modern clothier has produced to harmonize with the religions of respectable men": Shaw, Bernard (1903). Man and Superman (PDF). London: Constable. pp. 1–2. Perhaps a diplomatically suitable colour. Errantius (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 UK "Pledges to Admit 3 Million From Hong Kong to U.K."

I'am too unfamiliar with this issue but there is this :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/world/europe/boris-johnson-uk-hong-kong-china.html
« Describing it as one of the biggest changes in visa regulations in British history, Mr. Johnson said the roughly 350,000 Hong Kong residents who hold a British overseas passport, as well as some 2.5 million who are eligible to apply for one, would be granted 12-month renewable visas that would allow them to work in Britain and put them on a path to citizenship. »

Yug (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And?? That’s better suited for inclusion on British citizenship. To break it down a little bit, Johnson has proposed that BNO citizens will have extended entry rights to enter the UK, in order to settle and find work. They won’t have to pay to do this (most non-citizens have to pay for each Leave to Remain application. After 5 years, they can then apply for ILR, and for full British citizenship a year after that.

But it’s NOT automatic, they still have to build up their residency first. (Kreb (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

Create a separate British Overseas Territory passport article

Create a separate British Overseas Territory passport article, as they are still nominally separate statuses. It cannot be written/passed off as “they are the same”. The separate BOT passport articles can all be merged in there, with some linking material. (Kreb (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

As a side note, the Bermudian passport article looks a bit verbose. I might see if I can reread, trim it down to the most salient points, which should make it easier to merge. Don’t forget the point that Bermudians have visa-free entry rights to the US. (Kreb (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

Proposal to merge all British passport articles

There's a number of articles on various types of British passports that either repeats information already given in this article, adds small amounts of info that probably don't require separate articles, or are just stubs. I've listed them below for reference. In the case of the BN(O) passport article, background information on the nationality is elaborated on in the main British National (Overseas) article and any passport specific info (endorsements, physical appearance, stats on issuance) can be merged into this article. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would very much disagree with this, on at least three points.

By simply listing (and lumping) the articles together as a bloc, it appears that someone had never read, or taken in the significance of, the various types of British, or Overseas Territories nationality.

British citizenship is rather unique in that it has separate classes, based on a person’s national origin. The same is also true of British Overseas Territories (& BNO) nationality. The issuing of separate books reflects that.

Whilst BOT citizens may have the same status on paper, it’s actually the connection with the individual territory that’s relevant (Falkland Islands/Gibraltar partly excepted).

Someone from Anguilla, or the British Virgin Islands may have the same nationality status, but they cannot live or work in the other island(s) unless they naturalise over there. This is because their ‘belonger’ status is solely linked to their island of birth/naturalisation.

So it may be better to instead think of combining only the BOT territories on a single page. That could be expanded to include all of the existing variants (I get the general point, most of the individual books are clones, it’s just the way that you get them that’s different.

As for the Channel Islands and Isle of Man (and maybe Gibraltar) passports being merged, you may have a point. They are/have always been Brit(ish) Cit(izen)s, and the only significant difference has been the cover, as well as more recently, the Protocol 3 obs (not entitled to benefit from EU provisions for employment and establishment). Perhaps they can be boiled down and slotted in somewhere.

Another point worth making is that if you merged the BNO passport article into this one, then by extension you’d have to expand the article to include BOC and BPP passports as well. Or be prepared to include mini-sections for them.

That would probably widen the scope of the article too far. Very lengthy articles are often criticised and often split. It’s also important to retain clarity.

Most casual readers are likely to assume that a British passport is synonymous with British citizenship. They would probably be baffled to learn that BPP’s also hold British passports (as that article makes clear), just very useless ones that only entitle them to consular assistance, nothing more. (Kreb (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

For BNOs, you may actually wish to read both the BNO passport article, and the British National (Overseas) article carefully. The latter relates exactly how Chinese Hong Kongers acquired their status.

This is especially relevant right now. The only people who could become BNOs were Chinese Hong Kongers who elected to do so; if they did nothing, they became Chinese citizens instead. Other Asians, or (non-British) white people, just became British Overseas Citizens.

I would argue they should remain separate articles, particularly in view of the well-documented political struggles that they are facing at the moment. The world turns to Wikipedia to gain knowledge, and there is a significant risk of that being trimmed, if it’s boiled down into a single paragraph or two because “someone thought it would look neater”. (Kreb (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

So to summarise, maybe a compromise is needed. Build a new BOT passport page, with comprehensive sub-sections (i.e. leave nothing out), containing the original text from each territory passport article.

Ideally there ought to be a section about the Falklands, but not only do they (Falkland BOT passports) not exist, in practice it’s very much a legacy status, even amongst Falklanders (only people born before 1983 would’ve needed it to become British first; after that, it’s optional).

Then maybe merge the Channel Island/Isle of Man passports into this article.

But keep the BNO passport, and status articles separate.

One thing I will agree, there doesn’t need to be so much verbatim copying between articles (“the xxx passport has the following features” etc. etc. etc.). Most passports have identical features on the bio-page because they follow the ICAO standard format.

Also, the emergency passport is worth retaining, as it is what it is (i.e. an emergency document). I didn’t even know it’d changed colour until I’d read it here first!! (Kreb (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

Kreb: Adding on what Jake mentioned in his answer below, the individual passports themselves aren't really that notable, the nationality statuses are. Those articles already have significant coverage on how one would obtain those statuses, who could get them, and why they exist. The physical appearance of the passports and details on what's inside are virtually the same for nearly all British passports and don't have to be repeated across multiple articles for each territory. It's also not necessarily needed to expand significantly on BPPs and BOCs in this article. There wouldn't be anything different in appearance except the listed nationality on the details page of the passport and possibily some statements on the observations page. On your compromise proposal, what would you add in there to make it significantly different from this article? Details on eligibility would basically be repeated from the BOTC article.

I have to reply to this: it appears that someone had never read, or taken in the significance of, the various types of British, or Overseas Territories nationality. Yeah... I wrote those articles and brought most of them up to FA/GA, so I don't appreciate being told to read something that I wrote more carefully. Horserice (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge A passport is - simply speaking - not much more than a document that confirms a certain nationality status. Some of the articles have a few interesting factoids (e.g. the BN(O) article) with statistics, critizism, etc, however most of this really at the root of the matter is a critizism about the nationality status, not so much the document. Most of the passport articles add little to no value and may as well be summarised in a list or list article. The BN(O) article can easily split across the article about natioanlity status and Visa requirements for British Nationals (Overseas) without losing anything. I'd argue this would improve clarity. I did actually get mildly irritated when I cleaned up three articles after some people jumped the gun about the 1 July announcement and realized that all three are essentially the same. Btw, the fact that the BN(O) articles may be topical rights should not be a factor. Notability is long-term and shouldn't be subject to recentism. Wikipedia is also not the place for people to stay on top of development or how to obtain citizenship. This is for the news or government websites. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not the page to be merging BNO’s at, it should be merged over there. I still maintain some of the details could be boiled down, or lost, so care should be taken when merging articles. Also bear in mind the issues with overly long articles. Kreb (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge only Jersey passport, Guernsey passport, Isle of Man passport, Gibraltar passport - because they do relate to British citizenship. Gibraltar would need some care taken to explain that BOT status still exists side by side (technically for the Falklands too, but both are British first).(Kreb (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

British passport cover 2020.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright

Mjb1981 has published today three images of current passport covers, claiming in one case that its reproduction is permitted by the British Government's Open Government Licence. It is not. I repeat my warning of a year ago (Archive 1, #50 Copyright):

Query the copyright status of copies of passport covers, at least those less than 50 years old. The British government's Open Government Licence specifically exempts (excludes) from the licence "identity documents such as the British Passport". Errantius (talk) 12:56 pm, 27 December 2019, Friday (1 year, 19 days ago) (UTC+11)

The cover of the post-Brexit British Citizen passport has been reproduced here, but it seems ok for copyright since it is from a Home Office website. However, as to "own work" photos of earlier covers, I repeat my warning—with quotation from the Open Government Licence and with my emphasis in the last item:

Exemptions

This licence does not cover:

personal data in the Information;
Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
military insignia;
third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
identity documents such as the British Passport [my emphasis]

Errantius (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted my changes following this clarification.

Mjb1981 (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

edit request - passport gallery inaccuracies?

An IP editor made an edit that looks like it could have some useful info, although inappropriate good-faith as edited at the time. I'm not sure how to validate/source it or what edits even need to be made, so I'm just leaving this here as a comment instead - hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will pick it up... EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Amongst the images of British passport covers shown here, there is a problem with the one described as "1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland passport" The image shown is not genuine. Ignoring the blanks where the passport number and holder's name would appear, the cover of the document is wrong. In particular, the words 'UNITED KINGDOM' should not and did not have their own separate line on the British passport cover. The layout is such that the country name (because of its length) is always shown over two lines, and from the inception of the booklet style of British passport in 1921 the wording was split thus: 'UNITED KINGDOM OF / GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND' and in 1928 this was amended to read 'UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT / BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND' In the 1920s the Royal Coat of Arms should also bear the letters 'G R', indicating the reign of King George V. This feature is missing from the Wikipedia image but in fact the motif only disappeared in 1936 with the death of George V. It is not clear where the image in question came from but perhaps it was a mock-up that was never officially used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.139.214 (talk • contribs)

I reverted it because I wasn’t quite sure whether any of it could be validated by any official or historical sources. The Historian (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No that's fair, I agree with the revert for the same reason - just preserving the comment here in case it's useful to somebody :-) EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger with other pages on British passports

I've seen a proposal to merge the pages of differing other forms of the British passport (e.g. those issued by Overseas Territories or special types of Passports, such as the BN(O) Passport) into this page. That proposal has been active since July but not acted on? Is it still an issue for discussion or should I go ahead and close it by deleting the proposed merger notice? The Historian (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge, all Overseas British Passports to one page titled "Overseas British passport"/s, however, Oppose merging it to this page since the United Kingdom proper is distinct from it's overseas territories. PyroFloe (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree - the UK is separate from its Overseas Territories, so while it might help to declutter the encyclopedia if all the Overseas Territories' passports were merged into their own page, their status in international law differs from that of the UK, both in terms of their status and rights as subjects of international law and the rights of their citizens in comparison to UK citizens. The Historian (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (the merger) - In the case of Jersey, Jersey-variant British passports are distinct entities from other issued British passports and there is enough information for them to have their own article. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thehistorian10: I originally proposed the merger but there didn't seem to be enough feedback to act on it. The current and archived responses disagree on whether to merge all of the other pages into this page. Any thoughts? Horserice (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Horserice: Were the discussion to occur today, I would probably Oppose. To go off of what Jèrriais janne explains above, the various jurisdictional differences between territories justifies the division of these various passport types into different pages. The privileges and rights of the various passports differ sufficiently for the articles to be separate, not to mention that the authority by which they are issued is slightly different for each. I also believe that including all the different types of "British" passports in a single article would make for a bloated article indeed Booksworm ^Talk? 11:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Booksworm: While I agree there are substantial differences in rights between the people of each territory, those rights come from their nationality status and not the passport itself. The passport is just a booklet with slightly differing text depending on the circumstances of issue. Where I think I disagree with you right now is that those circumstances should go in the articles covering the different nationality classes and not in any of these articles on the passports themselves.

Let's use the British National (Overseas) and British National (Overseas) passport articles as an example. From the properly cited information in the passport article, what information isn't just repeated from the nationality article or can be easily covered there as well? The entire endorsements section is also already covered in the main British passport article. The same is generally true for most of the other articles on BOT variant passports. Horserice (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge All British passports are exactly what they are called: British passports. The article would simply need to be detailed enough to explain the different varieties of British nationality and belonger status. The United States also classifies its nationals into both "Citizens of the United States of America" and "US Nationals", yet this distinction did not require the creation of two articles. I think making one single article for all the types of British passports would give readers a clearer understanding of the situation. Île flottante (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Muzi (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Idea - Why not merge all content about all types of British passports now and see how much each section develops. If a particular section is developed to the point where there are Wikipedia:Undue weight considerations, split off the section again (say for instance if there is a lot of development on the particulars of BNOs) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose DK (DK) 13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltarians are a small, seprate self governing multicultural group. There may shortly be changes to the Gibrqaltar Passport after the UK/Spanish/Gibraltar agreement on 31/12/21 agreement for Gibraltar to join the Schengen Area. 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Colour

I understand that the British Government maintains that the passport is "Navy Blue", but I've just got one and it's indisputably black. The picture of a passport on this article page is black. There are numerous online sources which refer to the issue including the BBC. Should we have a section "Colour dispute over new passport" or something of that nature?Bob M (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My old British passports look, as you say, indisputably black. But, when they are held against a black piece of electronic equipment, a contrasting blueness appears. Errantius (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm amused to see that the one talk item here is exactly the thing I was wondering about. It strikes me that, even if it is - just about - blue, it's clearly not "navy" blue, as the article states. 2A00:23C4:7702:7E01:9CA2:3425:CC4D:7950 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that photo on the article is actually my old passport, one of the last issued in that original design. It would take a machine to describe it as blue, because no sane human would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1531:F700:61B5:DDF1:63BE:BF48 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That's rather rude. I said: "when they are held against a black piece of electronic equipment, a contrasting blueness appears". That is my (I believe sane, of course) experimental result. Whether this blueness should be classified as "navy" is something into which I shall not get (it might be an official secret ...) Errantius (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)