Talk:British subject

message: I removed this:
 Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law. Accordingly, nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still be referred to as "Her Majesty's subjects". 
It was uncited, and a Google search for "Her Majesty's subjects" reveals basically nothing post-1981 British Nationality Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed again after it was readded because it is original research.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" meaning of British Subject 

message: We now have an article with nothing prior to 1915.  The first paragraph of the previous text was reasonable and not every single sentence in an article need a citation.  If that was the case nearly every article would disappear.  Red Hat, would you think about some modification here?  One route might be to summarise History of British nationality law which seems the right balance of citation and text?--Snowded TALK 09:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every sentence needs a citation, but this "common law" stuff was not cited anywhere in the article.  If a source can be provided, I have no objection to its readdition.  I personally was unable to find any source for this.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So would you regard the equivalent paragraph in [History of British nationality law]] as adequate?  --Snowded TALK 11:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is almost as bad (in terms of references) as this one.  There is very little citation in it.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah well, I am afraid I disagree with you on that.  It could be improved but I do think your requirement on citation is harsher than is required by the rules.  However everyone edits differently and one has to adjust to the editors engaged on any page.  I will look to see if I can create something for the pre 1915 period that will stand up.  --Snowded TALK 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, have you actually read the policy at WP:V?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect yes, and I have also seen radically different interpretations from editors (including admins).  At one extreme we have OR, but then at the other each sentence is cited.  When I worked on the Philosophy page (my subject) with several others we balanced citation with sensible summary.  As I said you have a strict interpretation.  Learning other editor's styles is part of the enjoyment of work working here.  --Snowded TALK 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm not asking for every sentence to be cited, that would indeed be O.T.T.  I am simply saying that this "British subject in common law" stuff should have a source, to demonstrate that it is not original research.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You are misinterpreting me in that case.  If when you say "having a go" you mean finding sources for the material I removed, then great... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I object to the way you feel the need to delete whole paragraphs of content with little notice (e.g. by using  tags), and apparently, little attempt to improve the article yourself, either by adding sources or rewriting the paragraphs with what you think is verifiable. You even deleted a paragraph with a statutory citation. As for not being able to find any source on the common law yourself, have you heard of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England? Andrew Yong (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also with respect, I first posted on this talk page and you did not engage.  You simply reverted.  The onus is on you to provide references, or the material may be removed.  That is Wikipedia policy.  Read WP:V. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Whatever your area of expertise, you are not immune from having to provide references demonstrating that reliable third party sources reach the same conclusions that you do in your contributions.  I have to say, this article reads like your own personal paper.  Let us take this sentence as an example - "Although the term British subject now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a subject is still recognised by the law, and nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still accurately be described as the Queen's subjects, Her Majesty's subjects".  You have now provided a source, for this, but as far as I can tell, that source does not reach the same conclusions that you do.  You are taking mention of "subjects" in a court ruling and, and in an Act of Parliament, and then telling the reader what is or is not accurate.  That is synthesis I am afraid.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The case I cited is a recent judgment of the Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) of the High Court with multiple uses of "the Queen's subjects", "her subjects" / "Her Majesty's subjects" etc. in a highly contemporary context. In what way is this source not sufficient? Andrew Yong (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This might serve as an independent (non-government) source:
* Prof John Tulloch, 7/7 London bomb survivor, fights to stay in UK – BBC, 2 September 2012
More material is available here: John Tulloch (lecturer)#Possible deportation -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Tulloch 

message: Why isn't there a description of what a British Subject is currently in the lead? Regards, Rob (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been bugging me for some time, so I've finally rewritten it. Hopefully clearer now! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a British Subject? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British subject. 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/20091027125032/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_12#pt12-l1g109
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Missing info section added a couple of days ago, if anyone wants a redacted pic of such an Irish British national's "British Subject, with abode status" passport type (perhaps for upload by someone knowledgeable to do so to wiki commons), see here: https://i.imgur.com/UlnJwdA.jpg 
Also, see details pertaining to the rights for such "Subject, with abode" passport holders to obtain full Citizen passport under the recent "Windrush Scheme" --Jimthing (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "United States" section + "Windrush Scheme" implications missing