Talk:Passport/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

One of the earliest references to passports was made in about 450 B.C. Nehemiah, an official serving King Artaxerxes of ancient Persia, asked permission to travel to Judah. The King agreed and gave Nehemiah a letter "to the governors of the province beyond the river" requesting safe passage for him as he travelled through their lands.

Today's Canadian passports still carry such a letter of request. Inside the front cover is a letter issued in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. Like Nehemiah's letter, it also requests safe passage and protection for the bearer.

Another early reference: in a letter from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine to Pope Domnus, the Emperor proposed a "pre-conciliar conference", promising passports to the Western representatives chosen by the Pope. [source: "The Ecemenical Councils" by Kartashev]

Not until the reign of King Louis XIV of France did these "letters of request" become popular. The King granted personally signed documents to his court favourites. The letter was dubbed "passe port", literally meaning "to pass through a port", because most international travel was by sailing ships. Hence the term "passport".

Within 100 years of Louis XIV's reign, almost every country in Europe had set up a system to issue passports. Besides needing passports from their own countries, travellers also had to have visas issued by the countries they wanted to visit, much as we have travel visas today.

The rising popularity of rail travel in the mid-19th century led to an explosion of tourism throughout Europe and caused a complete breakdown in the European passport and visa system. In answer to the crisis, France abolished passports and visas in 1861. Other European countries followed suit, and by 1914, passport requirements had been eliminated practically everywhere in Europe. However, World War I brought renewed concerns for international security, and passports and visas were again required, as a "temporary" measure.

200 years ago there weren't passports. Now they are mandated internationally. What is the story behind this change? Was there a body that decided how to do this? When was the first passport? What organization decides on international passport standards? Kingturtle 19:15 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Good point, I hope someone fills in the history, although it will not be me. One comment though: passports did exist 200 years ago, and even longer. It's just that they were not necessarily compulsory for entry to all countries. For example, Genghis Khan (allegedly) gave Marco Polo's party passports to ensure free and safe travel throughout his realms. Arguably this is conceptually closer to a visa in modern terms, but it was from such documents that passports apparently evolved.

Incidentally, where the article says "requests permission in the name of the sovereign...", note that in British and other Commonwealth of Nations passports Her Britannic Majesty actually "requests and requires". I suppose that faint air of menace meant something once... Securiger 05:52, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I recall reading once that the real compulsory introduction of the passport occurred during World War I. I would like to say I even read that the reason was to prevent espionage between countries in war, and, further, that Europeans were horrified at the idea of needing documents to cross borders, but vague promises were made to elminate passports after World War I (and that the elimination was going to occur with the establishment of the League of Nations.) Unfortunately, I don't have any citations for this, but maybe that's enough information for someone else to put the pieces together. (I hope they do, because it represents a huge shift in liberty and national sovereignty, arguably the biggest loss of liberty in modern times.) Jimbobjoe 09:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The book "The Passport: The History of Man's Most Travelled Document." mentioned in the Further Reading section talks about this. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy to hand at the moment... Seabhcán 09:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not all Commonwealth Passports do this Securiger. My Australian passport reads: "The Govenor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need". Robertbrockway 09:29, Dec 2 2004 (UTC).

From our history section: "...This system continued in France, for example, until the 1860s."

I have before me a copy of Chambers's Journal, no.400, from August 1861, which has a section on "Passports". It starts by noting that "The passport system, hoary and effete, is now tottering and sick to death from the fatal blow dealt by Napoleon the Third, Imperator Francorum, on the first day of this year." and goes on to "take a sketch... before [the passport] becomes a fossil". I think this may be worth scanning and reading over. Anyone? Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

British passports are subject to arbitrary withdrawl as well. I quote from the "notes" section:

Caution: This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and may be withdrawn at any time.

213.48.230.145 16:20, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are indeed many countries that reserve the right to seize an individual's passport as government property, including almost every Latin American nation. Also, since one poster has already indicated that this holds true in the United Kingdom as well, it may be safely assumed that there are still others.

Irish passports remain the property of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and are subject to withdrawal at any time.

---

Passports of the Republic of China, informally known as Taiwanese passports, are official documents, so they are probably state property and may be withdrawn according to relevant law and administrative regulations. Sign your posts on talk pages next time, please. Otherwise, others cannot easily tell which user has written something.--Jusjih 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

American passports are also state property, but withdrawals cannot just be arbitrary.--Jusjih 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says it's illegal for US citizens to travel to Cuba. I believe this isn't true. It is, in general true that US citizens are prohibited (by trade sanctions) from trading with Cuba, and paying tourist taxes, renting accomodation, and buying in Cuba all fall foul of that law - so this makes it de facto illegal for most US citizens to visit Cuba. That said, if someone (e.g the Cuban government) gives someone a tax-free, all-expenses-paid trip (which they do, occasionally) then I think that's not trade and thus isn't illegal. Also, the government (I think the Secretary of Commerce) can issue a specific waiver, something he seems to do for various diplomatic, sporting, and I believe recently for trade purposes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. I believe that if one had a full university scholarship, e.g., it would be perfectly legal to accept it. Does anyone know for sure? Quill 02:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just thought of something else: wasn't it an American film crew that made that documentary about five years ago about the Cuban musicians? Part of it was filmed in Cuba...? Buena Vista Social Club or something like that. Quill 03:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, Buena Vista Social Club (movie). It was made by german filmmaker Wim Wenders, and it seems it was filmed on a handheld camcorder (I'm not sure by whom, but quite possibly by Wenders himself). So it's likely that no americans were used in the making of the film. The film does, however, feature american musician Ry Cooder (and maybe his brother). I guess if Wenders paid for everything (from a German bank account), including all of Cooder's bills, then Cooder himself didn't engage in any trade, and so no US trade law was broken. They'd have to be really dumb guys not to have thought very carefully about this subject, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American Government still limits American travels to Cuba. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html for more information.--Jusjih 07:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The much publicized urban legend regarding the supposed mere 1/4 fraction of the US population possessing passports has no basis in fact or in any reputable study, and thus has no place in a serious reference. And apart from having no basis in fact, the supposition itself is inherrently dubious due to the fact that people from the US constitute one of the world's largest, if not the largest, contributors to the global tourist industry.

On the US State Department website at http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/stats/stats_890.html

the State Department indicates that a total of 72,767,429 US passports were issued during the fiscal years of 1996 through 2005. Since passports have a maximum validity of ten years, these should be all of the valid US passports currently issued.

The US population is currently estimated at 298,000,000. Of this population amount we should eliminate 11.6 million "legal immigrants" and a conservatively high number of illegal immigrants of 11 million. This gives us 275,400,000 people in the US who are eligible to hold US passports. Additionally, there are an estimated 4,000,000 US citizens who live abroad, and let us conservatively assume that they all hold valid US passports (which they do not). This means that 68,767,429 US passports were issued to a "US passport eligible" population of 275,400,000. That comes out at about 25%.

Of course, this calculation doesn't take into account the fact that children's passports are only issued for five years, so some of the passports issued over ten years would be to the same person. But it shows that a population of about 275 million eligible to hold US passports are in possession of the 68.7 million valid passports currently in existence.

Steggall 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The number of people in the US holding a passport should not, necessarily, be used to gauge their interest in travelling abroad. US citizens do not require a passport to visit Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and most of the islands in the Carribean. This isolates the US, geographically, from many locations that require US citizens to have a passport.

When you consider that they can travel to the above locations without a passport, and with the vast size of the US itself and the variety of travel destinations in the US, then travelling to places that require a passport is more distant and much MORE costly. Many Americans would love to travel abroad if they could afford it.

Steggall 18:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The number of US citizens holding passports will also probably increase in the coming years, due to the US government's announcement that passports will be required for entry to the US from the Caribbean, Bermuda, Central and South America starting in 2006, from Canada and Mexico when travelling by air or sea in 2007, and at the land border crossings in 2008.

Steggall 14:03, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that since the implementation of the Schengen treaty in the EU, a lot of Europeans now don't bother to get passports. They may travel within the EU and to a handful of other countries using their national ID cards. Some of my Spanish friends who live in Ireland have never held a passport, it is now simply an unnecessary expense. (If only the Irish government would issue ID cards I'd happily ditch my passport too!) Seabhcán 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following web site of the US state department details the number of passport issued: http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/stats/stats_890.html. Add up the number issued in the past 10 years (the period passports valid today would have been issued) and it seems fairly consistent with the 1/4 figure. Though I agree that there are problems with drawing further conclusions from this number.

I don't understand why the estimate that only 25% of Americans have passports is dismissed as an urban legend. You can go to the US State Department and see that only 73 million passports have been issued in the past ten years. Assuming the recent World Factbook estimate of 298 million Americans, the figure of 25% Americans sounds reasonable. Even if you restrict the count to Americans over 15 (298 million less 60.8 million is 237 million), you still get 30%, a figure in the same ballpark.

I also have no idea what corroborative power this sentence has: "And apart from having no basis in fact, the supposition itself is inherrently dubious due to the fact that people from the US constitute one of the world's largest, if not the largest, contributors to the global tourist industry."

http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/stats/stats_890.html http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

An NYT report dated 2003-11-14 says that "reports differ" on whether Cuban officials stamp visitor's passports or not. I'll modify the article for now. -ph

I've been to Cuba (in August 2005) and, much to my disappointment, my passport was not stamped. They merely stamped the visa card I'd got from the Cuban consulate in Paris, and they kept that card when I left Cuba. Aridd 13:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have stamps from Havana, Tel Aviv and Rafah in my old passports despite the fact that you aren't supposed to be able to get stamps from Cuba or Israel. Mike Kiwi 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an explination that can be included as to why Israeli passports aren't accepted by those listed countries? Spinboy 21:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most of it stems from the Arab-Israeli conflict. The countries listed don't accept Israeli passports because they don't recognize Israel as a country. Steggall 18:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Similarly it is unlawful under Israeli law for Israelis to travel to those countries. The name escapes me right now but an Israeli businessman/conman traveled to the United Arab Emirates to do business some years ago and was promptly snatched and taken to Lebanon as a hostage. It was commented that he actually broke the law in Israel. Of course this really was the least of his problems :( I have considered mentioning this Israeli law to the article but need to research it. Robertbrockway 09:35, Dec 2 2004 (UTC).

If this is about [Elchanan Tenenbaum], then his crime was traveling to Lebanon, not to UAE or Kuwait, as technically, Lebanon and Israel are at war. The rule in Persian Gulf states is not reciprocal AFAIK. - Galilite 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have some comments: Israeli passports ARE accepted to Tunisia, Qatar and on certain circumstances Indonesia. Israeli law prohibits israeli citizens from going to lebanon, syria, iraq, saudi arabia and yemen, unless they get permit from the minister of interior affairs. this is because thes countries fought against israel in the independence war. egypt and jordan were originally included but since they made peace with israel it was cancelled.

70.119.244.67 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) There is nothing in my Israeli passport that names individual countries to which I am not permitted to travel. In fact, it includes the statement "Passport valid for all countries" and in comparison to Commonwealth passports, mine reads in Hebrew and English (shown below):

The Minister of the Interior of the State of Israel hereby requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer of this passport to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him such assistance and protection as may be necessary. (jdlflorida@jdl.org.il)

I have removed a number of Gulf countries from the list of states not accepting Israeli passports or denying entry to holders of Israeli visas as they were not substantiated. Particularly egregious was the comment next to Saudi Arabia, noting that it does not allow entry to jewish persons--I happen to be jewish and I lived for a number of years in Saudi. While some (including in the Saudi administration) might interpret that in fact no non-Muslims at all should be allowed into the country, one can see the reality is vastly different. In addition to that, if someone remembers, there was a mini-scandal a couple of years ago due to a website set up by the Saudi government to promote (a limited form of) tourism, which included a comment to the effect that jews were not welcome. This sparked protests by an American congressman, to which the Saudi government responded by updating the site and claiming the remark was a prank by some website developer (and knowing the country, this is perfectly credible). The also mentioned in passing that, in fact, there are no directives to deny entry to holders of Israeli visas--of course, whether showing up at Jeddah or Dammam with an Israeli stamp on your passport is a wise idea is entirely another matter.

As for the UAE, I personally witnessed one Israeli citizen transiting through the UAE (I have the impression he was en route to India or thereabouts) with an Israeli passport go through the immigration checkpoint. The bloke at the desk did not bat an eyelid, which makes me think that wasn't the first time he saw one of them.

And regarding the other countries I removed, I have heard claims both ways, and, having lived in the region, I would tend to think that things are not so clear-cut we tend to believe. So in conclusion I suggest that, unless someone can provide clear references, one should not include countries in the not allowed list, even if as a common sense precaution, one would not normally travel with blatant evidence of past or planned visits to Israel through certain states.--216.250.211.154 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the UAE, I personally witnessed one Israeli citizen transiting through the UAE (I have the impression he was en route to India or thereabouts) with an Israeli passport go through the immigration checkpoint. The bloke at the desk did not bat an eyelid, which makes me think that wasn't the first time he saw one of them.

216.250.211.154, this is very strange. I hold an Israeli passport, and when I have attempted to book a ticket just transiting Dubai (without leaving the airport!), travel agents in [Flight Centre] immediately said, "No, you can't go to Dubai." I also heard a story of a guy who just travelled to Israel with Australian passport, then to Europe, and then back to Australia via Dubai, and was deported to the previous destination because of a stamp in his passport (or was it a ticket with full itinerary). Not sure about Malaysia though, I might try it soon and will report the results. - Galilite 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Asked about Malaysia. Flight Centre visa department's reply: "It is possible to use a Kuala Lumpur transit, but a letter from Malaysian embassy is required and it is forbidden to leave the transit hall." - Galilite 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is quoted from this U.S. State Department Webpage: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24453.htm "Because Israel and Saudi Arabia do not have diplomatic relations, Israeli-Arab Muslims are required to transit Jordan and obtain Jordanian travel documents to enter Saudi Arabia. In Jordan, they temporarily relinquish their Israeli passports for the Jordanian documents. Their passports are returned to them upon re-entry into the country." That's actually a bit of an understatement. Israel and Saudi Arabia have technically been at war since the late 1940s. I remember reading about an Israeli journalist who was allowed into Saudi Arabia as an exception to the rule, but if Arab Israelis need Jordanian papers to enter Saudi Arabia, I think it safe to conclude that Israelis of any background are not normally allowed into Saudi Arabia on Israeli papers. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article listing that travel without passports is allowed between the NAFTA countries (Canada, the US, and Mexico). While this is generally true, it's unclear whether the ability to travel between those countries without the use of a passport is defined in NAFTA or not.

Passport-free travel amongst those countries existed prior to NAFTA. Note that proof of citizenship is still required, and NAFTA does not allow for the same free movement of people as exists in the EEA. It does make it easier for certain people to conduct business or gain temporary residence in the other countries.

Steggall 19:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was looking for a collective term for the three countries, and NAFTA seemed to fit the bill. I'm really not sure the degree to which NAFTA defines inter-member travel, and indeed the article might be taken to suggest it is NAFTA which obviates passports. Perhaps changing "NAFTA countries" to "North America" would be better (as the three countries essentially comprise North America). I fear we'll get complaints from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon that they still need a passport to visit Canada ;) - John Fader

There were some inaccuracies about European countries. I tried correcting them to the best of my knowledge. (I admit the situation is not simple.) David.Monniaux 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made a couple of further clarifications to this, and grouped the resulting text under a new fourth-level heading, "EU, EEA and the Schengen treaty". Teemu Leisti 22:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall that there is no inherent right to be admitted across the border and Foreign Affairs Canada recommends you take your passport Martin-C 07:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this section on international travel without passports warrants a separate article. It's as much about travel or tourism as about passports (or the lack thereof really). Jonathan David Makepeace

In South America, among member states of regional groupings such as MERCOSUR and the Andean Community of Nations, it is possible to travel without a passport (nationals of member states can show their National ID/voting registration cards or permanent residence cards if they are foreign nationals). User_talk:Mediterraneo

I bet one could write interesting articles about individual countries' passports. I'd love to learn about the United States passport, including how it's changed over time, and what technical security it has (RFID chips?). dbenbenn | talk 20:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already been working on Passport Canada which is mainly about the office, but I see no reason it can't talk about the Canadian passport as well. I think it's a great idea. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I keep seeing a link added for the World Service Authority, but is there any point? Does anyone recognize them? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Spinboy, note that the article has a paragraph on micronations issuing passports that aren't recognized by any U.N. member. Why forbid external links on a similar topic? I disagree with what the World Service Authority is doing and have written to them encouraging them to stop issuing passports, since they are not secure documents and could easily be abused. However, they been around since the late 1940s promoting the concept of world citizenship. They've been issuing passports for forty years, which they claim (and I believe them) have been stamped by officials in 150 countries. They also claim that several countries have given their passports explicit "de jure" legal recognition. I suspect that that claim is deceptive. It may or may not have been true in the past, but the U.S. government has been leaning heavily on countries to withdraw such recognition in recent years. I doubt any government currently affords them true legal recognition, but I can't imagine talking about passports without mentioning this fascinating experiment. Jonathan David Makepeace

We don't link to every micronation that issues passports though, if we did, the external links section would be huge. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would also be huge if we linked to every legitimate passport authority in the world. These are people who have been issuing passports for forty years, seem to have enjoyed de jure recognition in the past, and who make serious assertions about the right to travel. There is no other group like them that asserts world citizenship. Their passports aren't peripheral, they are central to what the World Service Authority is about. Why do you want to deny people access to information about this phenomenon? Their passports have been in the news countless times. A couple of recent examples: The U.S. government claims that an al-Qaida terrorist used one of their passports. The founder of the WSA (a U.S. American) tried to travel to Iraq as a human shield on one of them but was detained by Turkey for not having legitimate papers. I don't want an edit war, but you have yet to convince me that the link is inappropriate. I feel that your deletion of the link is unwarranted censorship. Jonathan David Makepeace

And you have yet to convince me that we should include the link. If you think it's so noteworthy, why don't you create an article on the WSA? Then you can link to the article it under "See also." If others don't think it's noteworthy, it will end up on vfd, and the other members of Wikipedia will decide. Or you could put up a request for comment on this link. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why put up an article that would repeat what is already on their Website?

Even the New Zealand Immigration doesn't recognize the WSA. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion your point is irrelevant. This article is on passports, not passports that enjoy universal recognition. Indeed, the article discusses passports issued by U.N. member states that are not recognized by other such states, e.g., Israeli passports. Also, Tonga issues "Tongan Protected Persons" passports that are also not recognized by New Zealand or any other country I am aware of, and yet Tonga is a U.N. member. The U.K. issues similar passports that are not recognized by many countries because they don't carry with them the right to live anywhere. I am restoring the link. Jonathan David Makepeace

I see that the external link has been replaced by a link to an overtly biased stub characterizing the World Service Authority as "A group of people who think they can issue passports." I feel that the Micronations section of the Passport article is inaccurate since the World Service Authority provides documentation to show not only that its passports have been accepted by UN member states on a de facto, case-by-case basis but that several such countries have extended routine, de jure recognition to the documents. I am editing the Micronations section and the WSA stub. Jonathan David Makepeace

IMHO, it is not correct that holders of diplomatic passports are granted immunity only because they have been issued with such a passport. According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomats only enjoy privileges in case that they have been accredited as members of a mission by the host state. It is also customary to grant privileges to persons representing a country which are officially invited by the host country in that function. Furthermore, some countries provide for the possibility of visa-free entry of holders of diplomatic or service passports of some nations as defined in national laws. Granting immunity to all holders of diplomatic passports would invite certain regimes to abuse by broadly issuing such passports.

What, I wonder, is the status of someone "travelling on a diplomatic passport" when they're in a third country in transit from theirt home country to the country of their posting? If you're correct, that person has no diplomatic status in that third country. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 8, 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Regarding the article's reference to "Black Passport" being a synonym for a diplomatic passport: Is that a universally used expression or merely one used in the United States? Do any countries issue diplomatic passports in colours other than black? --Steggall July 18, 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Normal British passports used to all be black. With the transition to EU passports (which are red), the old passports were informally called "black passports" and the new ones "red passports". So the term "black passport" meaning a diplomatic passport would confuse a british reader, at least. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've been told that the old British passports were not truly black, they were actually a very dark, dark shade of blue. I remember while visiting relatives in Britain, I referred to my mother's "black" British passport and several people corrected me that it was really blue. Of course now they're burgundy, but that's a different story. --Steggall July 19, 2005 03:09 (UTC)

I have one of these, it is very dark blue. I can scan or photo it if you like. Trollderella 20:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Here it is. It is very dark blue, with gold embossing. Note the top right corner of this passport has been clipped, indicating that it has been cancelled, and is no longer valid. It is 4inches by 5 and 7/8 inches, making it slightly larger than the new EU passports, and is hardcover, rather than paperback. The top window is for name, the bottom for passport number, which, on the old UK passports was in the format 111111 A.

This discussion is a bit ancient, but American dip passports are black. The colour of dip passports for other countries varies. The old navy blue UK passports originally had serial numbers that related to their place of issue. L - Liverpool etc. This changed later.

You do not get diplomatic immunity unless you are acredited to the country concerned. A Dip passport is essentially meaningless for immunity purposes. Spartaz 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article states that SA bars entry for Jews (of any nationality) and Israelis (of any affiliation). Does this mean that Muslim Israelis cannot perform the Hajj? //Big Adamsky 11:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few Muslims in Israel, but I am unsure how to answer your question.--Jusjih 07:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There a few, yes (about a million or so). //Big Adamsky 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Muslims are issued temporary passports by Jordan in order to make the hajj.--Jonathan David Makepeace 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article establishes that the Queen of the United Kingdom/Canada/Australia/etc. does not carry a passport. Do other sovereign monarchs (e.g., the Pope, Sultan of Brunei) also not carry passports? 143.58.161.6 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The article states:

Some countries decline to accept Tongan Protected Person passports, though they do accept standard passports issued to Tongan citizens.

Why is this under the subheading "Micronations"? Tonga is not a micronation. It's an internationally recognised sovereign state, and a member of the UN. That sentence should be moved, as it's misleading in its current location. Aridd 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have heard from my co-worker that a Jamaican passport is written in English only. Could someone please verify this?--Jusjih 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was fascinating! Does anyone else think it would be worthwhile, once it has been cleaned up, recommending it as a featured article?

86.2.106.90 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Richard.

Is there some reason this article does not have a contents section? It has over the number of sections generally required for the software to create one automatically and I cannot see any coding to hide it, so I was just curious!

EvocativeIntrigue 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The main article is now getting rather large and in need of rationalisation. Could it be worth seperating out some of the special cases (eg China/HK/Macau) into a seperate article and having a summary here?

Would it be useful to include a table of exterior color for passports by nationality? I have seen several green passports from a distance and wondered which country that was from. An image in the article shows a green Indian passport, which is different from anything I am aware of. Every Indian passport I have seen from 1970 to today is the same blue as US passports. As far as I know, there are only three colors used worldwide: blue, red/burgundy, and green. Madhu 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of different colours for passports and a chart of what passport was what colour would very quickly become out of date. BTW the Indian passport may appear greenish but I think that's just a scanning artifact as its an ordinary one and should appear blue like all the other ones. To the best of my knowledge ordinary Indian passports 'have' always been blue. Spartaz 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some countries will have a special colour (or colours) for passports that they issue to diplomats and/or government employees. Steggall 17:16 06 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of the passport images are shown as licensed by the scanner. I believe that if you scan an image belonging to somwone else you do not own the copyright on that scan as its a drivative image from the passport. This needs lots of work to put right on this article otherwise we may have to prune some of the images. Grateful for some thoughts on this. Spartaz 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive someone (who knows it) should write a line or two on why passports are stamped.

Done. GRateful for some proofing by someone. Thanks --Spartaz 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this new section.

The statement "In both systems it is not allowed to stamp the passports of persons not subject to Immigration Control," is not totally correct. In my experience stamping or not stamping depends on a lot of things, and is often at the whim of the passport control officer.

Within Europe (not just the EU), they do not stamp on a regular basis for passports of other European countries where no visa is required. To do so would take too much time, and would quickly fill up the passports of regular travellers, and would be impossible if the traveller had an ID card instead of a passport.

If the passport is checked (if they take it off you, go into their little booth and type the details into their computer to see if it is genuine), then they may well stamp it. It may also get stamped if you register as a resident of a foreign country. TiffaF 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Stamping the passport is rarely at the whim of an officer or they would never bother to stamp any passports at all. It would be a disciplinary offence for a UK immigratiop officer to knowingly stamp the passport of someone not subject to control. I'm in an out of schengen all the time and have never had my passport stamped. I am resident in an EU country and have a residence permit in my passport. This is not required by every EU country for EU nationals. By all means discuss your experiences but please specify where and when the stamping happened as my comment refers only to the UK and EU countries. Oh, and most of the EU immigration authorities have their warnings indexs on their front control desks so there would be no point taking your passport away from the control to check you on the computer system. Spartaz 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement is not correct: "Citizens of the UK and Ireland do not require a passport to travel between the two countries." I have traveled between these countries 60 times or more from 1990 and up until early 2005 you didn't need a passport (I just showed my UK drivers license if I was challenged at all). However, you now DO need a passport to enter the Republic of Ireland from the UK. Travelling from Ireland to the UK is different, you normally have an exit for "Domestic and Republic of Ireland" flights and you don't need to show your passport. Mike Kiwi 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

British and Irish citizens do not need to show a passport, but must provide alternative evidence of nationality if asked. As I understand it, there is no (consistent) immigration control in operation on the land frontier with Northern Ireland. JAJ 04:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is usual for a passport to have a "note" (usually near the front of the booklet) requesting and requiring help for its holder" => Ordinary German passports do not contain any note like this (in fact, the only information in them apart from the holder's personal details is "This passport is the property of the Federal Republic of Germany" and "This passport contains 32 numbered pages". No advice on safeguarding the passport, no field for next-of-kin details, no "you may not alter this passport", nothing). Is this unique, or are there other nations' passports like this?

To whomever it might concern. The Croatian passport image in the Gallery of passport covers section is not a picture of a real passport. Instead it's a picture of a booklet given out to tourists (and if you look closely it does say "Croatian tourist passport") so please replace it with a picture of a real passport. Lathrop1885 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read several articles (mainly on escaping Nazis after the war) which make reference to "Red Cross Passports" (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Stangl#Post-war_escape) I have tried very hard to find out more information about these passports but no one seems to know exactly what they are, under what authority they are issued, what legal status they have etc, etc. It so happens that I work in London for the Red Cross and I have asked around the office and- even here!- people are uncertain of the answer! So, is there anyone out there who knows anything? I think it would make a worthwhile addition to this article or perhaps even a short article in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.128.68 (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2006

The Red Cross and IOM issue identity documents/cards to refugees and they can occasionally use these for repatriation and journeys to accepting countries, so I imagine they are/were something along these lines. Well worth a look at and probably a separate article. --Spartaz 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather keen to find out more but I'm not at all certain where to start looking... everytime I Google "Red Cross Passports" all that comes up are the same articles about escaping Nazi war criminals. Just to be clear Spartaz: Are you saying that there is probably no such a thing as a "Red Cross Passport" per se? do you mean that this is really an id card/travel document that has been misnamed "passport".... ?

I mean that I think I have seen a Red cross travel document but I can't remember what form it took and it certainly wouldn't have been any use without a visa in it. IIRC they simply stuck the visa on it because it saved issuing a GV3 travel letter/visa combo. Its infuriating because this was over a decade ago and the old memory is starting to go on me now. These days refugees without documents generally travel under the auspices of the IOM and they issue letters that are not used as ID as the IOM arranges an immigration waiver for the purpose of that journey. I'll need to do some research but I'm not entirely sure where to look. I'll add it to my to do list. BTW you can sign your name by adding 4 tildes after your text like this ~~~~ cheers --Spartaz 19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up that many of the images are incorrectly tagged for copyright and that they may not be licenced for use on Wikipedia. I am about to start going through them and will begin challenging incorrect tags. If we cannot find permission to use them on the relevent government's website they may well have to be deleted as they cannot be considered fair use in such numbers. I will leve this a day or two in case there is any discussion to be had but we must make sure that the images in the article conform to wikipedia image policy. --Spartaz 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Started tonight. have tagged incorrectly licenced images up to equador. Will go through rest when have time --Spartaz 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If we cannot find permission to use them on the relevent government's website they may well have to be deleted as they cannot be considered fair use in such numbers. Why not? JAJ 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the copyright of the images is retained by the government that issues the passports so how ever much the uploader claims to be the rights holder of a scan they are not. I flagged this up months ago and no-one did anything and the number of incorrectly tagged images keeps on increasing. If we can't find permission to use the images they can only be used as fair-use. You will notice that I did not tag the images that have fair use rational in their tags but the following is from the policy

The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

The image or media description page must contain:

Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).

An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.

For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.

Finally

Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies. In addition, the Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions. If an image on which fair use is claimed is not in use for an article it may be deleted immediately.

Bottom line - this article is bloated with unfree images that have been incorrectly tagged and no way can they all be described as fair use. I'm trying to tidy this up. Its slow work and a real pain to do. Why not help? --Spartaz 05:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept the images shouldn't exist on WP. Each one is almost certainly fair use within its own article, eg Australian Passport. However I do agree that this article doesn't need to be decorated with a graphic of what would eventually become 200 or so different passport covers. JAJ 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the images are fair use they need to be tagged a such. I'm not going to just ignore the fact that all these images have been tagged incorrectly. Right now I'm concentrating on cleaning up these images. I'll worry about the fair use later but I'm pretty sure that we will need to seek expert help to ensure that we are interpreting the guidelines correctly and that any images that remain are appropriate.

I'm not opposed to the gallery because it seems to be of interest to many readers but I would like to replace the current images with images with valid tags or even the same images with correct tags on them. Thereafter, there may be merit in spinning off this section into a separate article to allow the main article to flow more freely. Spartaz 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OH and your point about keeping the Australian images for the australian passport article is spot on but the tags need to be fixed and fortunately for the e-passport the image has been released freely by the australian government.--Spartaz 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

<unindent> covers up to mexico have now been disputed if they have been tagged incorrectly. I'm currently saving the Fair use claims & commons file for later. Spartaz 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now finished tagging the images with invalid copyright tags. Next step will be images that are claimed fair use with no fair use rationale Spartaz 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. A passport is not a work of art. If one follows your logic, one cannot take a photo of, say, a Pakistani tank, because its design is copyrighted by Pakistani army. Unless you provide legal arguments that passports are works of art and copyrighted, I am going to revert your work. `'mikka (t) 14:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely bad faith to revert me without waiting for the response and I am sorry but the coat of arms on a passport covers are works of art. They are national symbols or are you asserting your right to copy them and use them in any way you see fiy? I'm afraid that the onus to revert this remains with you as I have consensus on my side. This issue has been flagged up on this page for nearly two months. I have had my actions checked out by an admin well versed in copyright/image problems and he has agreed with my actions. It says in the inside of my passport that it remains the property of HM government. Therefore the image rights remain with them. I am going to revert you back. Next time discuss before making any changes. Spartaz 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, please look at puiSpartaz 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC) We now both have 3 reverts. This is unseemly. The policy page at WP:PUI requires the tags to be added to engender debate on the disputed images. Why don't you do that instead of being disruptive. If you remove them again you will break the 3RR. This is a total waste of time. Spartaz 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Right., Waste of time. The image are tagged at their pages. Propagating variuous warning tags is an extremely bad idea. Following your logic, if an article is tagged {{NPOV}}, then every article that links to them must have warning too. Another issue with your tag it is HUHE and intrusive. Tags that are not placed on top of the article are made small and non-intrusive, such as {{fact}}. Yours is wide as a bus. `'mikka (t) 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree they are horrid but I'm falling back onto the following policy excuse. The Policy page pui clearly states that all of the image captions must be tagged with {{unverified image}} .The template even had instructions to add the tag after the pui tag was inserted on the page (suspiciously this was removed overnight - you don't know anything about that do you?).

Strikes me you need to address the policy - not try and intimidate me into not following it. Policy can be an ass but i'm not experienced enough to ignore it -especially when its going to be something a little contentious like tagging all these inproperly tagged images.

Spartaz 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4