Talk:Iroquois passport

Anonymous edits by 216.249.42.214
The comparisons to the Military Order of Malta and the Conch Republic are erroneous, although for someone unfamiliar with the Haudenosaunee or their history, it's an understandable leap of logic. I've tried to put them in perspective, and will try to add more background info. There's a lot of history that supports the use of the Haudenosaunee Passport. Linzzay (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)linzzay


 * This article is about a passport, not about Iroquois sovereignty. You are redefining sovereignty and contradicting Tribal sovereignty in the United States and using unacceptable sources (a blog).  The comparison to SMOM and Conch Republic are about the use and acceptance of passports, not about  comparative sovereignty.  The "History of the Haudenosaunee" has nothing to do with this subject.  Sorry, but your edits, as they stand, are unacceptable.14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.42.214 (talk)

216.249.42.214, if you are going to criticize the validity of others' sources, make sure you have sources of your own. Many of the statements you added were uncited and reflected your own opinion. For example, while citing a blog is not acceptable, neither is citing another Wikipedia article. At best that invites circular reasoning, and in this case the Wikipedia article did not even support your point.

I do agree that the article should focus on the use and the acceptance of the Iroquois passports -- not unrelated passports such as the SMOM or the Conch Republic, and not about comparative sovereignty -- and I hope that my edits reflect this with adequate sources. rspεεr (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Slightly better. First sentence says 1977, second says 1923; quite the difference - please read your edits after making them. Nothing in the Treaty of Canandaigua seems to mention passports, so saying that it is the "diplomatic basis" for the passport is Original Research, which isn't allowed (if you can find an accepted source that says otherwise, then you can include it).  And the edits continue to portray subject as an accepted travel document, which the sources quite explicitly refute.12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.42.214 (talk)


 * If you have a reliable source that "explicitly refutes" that the Iroquois passport is not an accepted travel document, you'll have to actually show it, and we'll have to make the appropriate contrast with the other sources that describe it being accepted for travel. I believe that it is your own conclusion that you have drawn from a selective interpretation of the sources.
 * When you claim in the article that the U.S. does not accept the Iroquois passport for travel, you cite a source that disagrees. The news article describes that in this case, the U.S. did not accept the passport, but contrasts this with the many times in the past that they had. In fact, another source points out that a Mohawk was currently traveling to the United Nations on the passport at the time of the report. So the general statement you are making and attributing to ABC News was not actually made by them, and is also incorrect.
 * What's more, your purported source comparing the Iroquois passport to "novelty camouflage passports" is completely irrelevant and says no such thing. The entire source is about the Conch Republic passport, not the Iroquois passport.
 * In general, you are introducing bias to this article by taking sources and reinterpreting them according to your own opinion. Stop doing that. rspεεr (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The source says "the United States maintained its refusal this afternoon to recognize their tribal passports.". It is quite clear.
 * As the "completely irrelevant" source demonstrates, successful travel does not, if fact, denote recognition or official acceptance.18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to read one sentence out of context. Does that mean the US has consistently refused to recognize Iroquois passports for travel? No, of course not, the news articles mention they've recognized them and provided appropriate documents to back them in the past. "Maintaining its refusal" refers to this one ongoing standoff with the lacrosse team. And yes, the Conch Republic source is irrelevant. The fact that someone has traveled illegitimately on a "Conch Republic passport" does not mean that people who travel on an Iroquois passport are traveling illegitimately, and it actually has nothing to do with that fact. It doesn't demonstrate a thing because it isn't even related.
 * Here's some food for thought. If the point you're pushing were correct -- if traveling on an Iroquois passport was never legitimate -- then why would all the news sources this article cite be mentioning the lacrosse standoff as such an anomaly? It's Wikipedia's job to report what the reliable sources generally say. Not an original conclusion that one anonymous person on the Internet draws by cherry-picking sentences and putting them together in illogical ways with unrelated sources about the Conch Republic. rspεεr (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazingly, you edit left almost half of the article as either falsely sourced or original research. Reverted.19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.210.130 (talk)  (same anon editor)

Isle of Man financial warning
I'm splitting this into its own discussion topic, because it is largely unconnected to the rest of what we have discussed and I feel it may easily go off topic.

In my edit, I was considering leaving in the Isle of Man reference, except to replace the vague "some jurisdictions" with the correct context (a financial warning by the Isle of Man in 1984). That would normally be preferable to removing a source. However, as I looked into that source more, I feel that it must be sufficiently out of context that I would not want to base anything on Wikipedia off of it.

For one thing, the document is not about international travel. It's about financial crime, and it warns financial institutions not to accept fantasy or camouflage passports, and it gives a list of examples of "fantasy passports" that includes "Iroquois Nation", "Haudenosaunee", and "Mohawk". Okay, so that might indicate something about recognition of the Iroquois Nation passport for non-travel purposes. At least in the Isle of Man. Maybe that guy who created all the random Wikipedia articles (now redirected) about things like Finnish-Indonesian relations would like to use it as the basis of another one about Manx-Iroquois relations.

I'm getting a bit facetious here, but my point is that it's already not the strongest of sources about the status of the Iroquois passport. But that's not the really dubious part about it.

It's also got Israel on the list of "fantasy passports".

It seems to me that if this document was as internationally significant as the anonymous editor claims it to be, it would have caused an international incident. Israel was an ally of the Isle of Man's own Queen at the time! I am also amused at the idea that the Isle of Man would choose to throw stones about incomplete sovereignty from its own glass house.

It seems more likely that this document reflects the view of a frustrated bureaucrat, and has never reflected the official position of the Isle of Man. Therefore, I have left it out. rspεεr (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am curious to as where you go the 1984 date, it appears to have been published in 2003, and published again as part of a larger document in 2005.
 * The nature and purpose of the document is irrelevant. The context that is important is its definition of a spurious (fantasy) passport: "Spurious passports have the appearance of a passport, but are issued by organisations with no authority and to which no official recognition has been given. Such passports are therefore not an acceptable statement of either nationality or identity."
 * Finally, no, it does not have Israel on it. It has an entity called Nation of Israel.  Here is an Israeli passport:


 * Do you see the words Nation of Israel on it? No, you do not, because Israeli passports are issued by the State of Israel.18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes more sense than the alternative, which is why I asked. It seems a pretty sloppy way for them to put it, though. Why wouldn't they list "Nation of Israel" under "camouflage passports", then, and make the distinction?
 * You're also right about the 2003, I was misinterpreting the first line.
 * So anyway, I will re-add that the Isle of Man considers the Iroquois passport to have no authority for financial transactions. Not with vague generalizations like "some jurisdictions". rspεεr (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian source
Although I do not agree with the point you want this article to make, 216.249.42.214, thank you for the source about how the issue progressed within Canada. It was an aspect of the issue I hadn't known about before. rspεεr (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iroquois 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/20090720042243/http://www.gov.im/infocentre/archived_releases/PR_fsc_01/Passport.html to http://www.gov.im/infocentre/archived_releases/PR_fsc_01/Passport.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Name Change: Haudenosaunee instead of Iroquois
This seems like a no-brainer.. the image of the passport itself says "Haudenosaunee."

Yes, "Iroquois" is an accepted alternative, but it is far from the preferred and used name. Danachos (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)